Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Behera vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 12 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(II)OLR1
Author: B.N. Agrawal
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, Chief Justice, P.K. Mohanty
JUDGMENT B.N. Agrawal, C.J.
1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus after quashing the order of detention of son of the petitioner passed on 1.9.1999 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (in short, the 'Act') by the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur (hereinafter referred to as the "detaining authority') contained in Annexure-1 and the order dated 12.9.1999 passed by the State Government approving the same contained in Annexure-3.
2. As the writ application is bound to succeed on a short point, as such it is not necessary to state the facts. It has been stated in the writ application that son of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') submitted two representations on 30.9.1999 before the jail authority, one for being forwarded to the State Government and the other to the Central Government. Both the representations were sent through the concerned District Magistrate on the same day for being forwarded to the aforesaid two Governments. The detaining authority sent the representation filed by the detenu for being sent to the State Government in the Home Department on 5.10.1999 and the same was received on 8.10.1999. The said representation was placed in the file on 2.2.2000. i.e. after about lour months from the date of its receipt. Thereafter it took 26 days for disposal as it has been stated that on 28.2.2000 representation filed by the detenu was rejected.
3. On behalf of the State Government as well as the detaining authority (opp. party No.2) separate counter affidavits have been filed, but same are not on record. Probably they have been misplaced. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is permitted to file copies of the said counter affidavits from which counter affidavits filed by the State Government and the detaining authority are re-constituted. Let the copies of the counter affidavits be kept on record.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government it has been admitted in paragraph 10 that the representation was received in the Home Department on 8.10.1999, same was placed in the file on 2.2.2000 for consideration, and it was rejected on 28.2.2000. Nowhere it has been stated in the counter affidavit as to why it took about four months' time in placing representation in the file. It has also not been Stated in the counter affidavit as to why 26 days' time was taken for disposal of the representation after same was kept in the file. In view of these facts, it is not possible to maintain the order of detention and order passed by the State Government approving the same.
5. This case is not an isolated instance. In last few months, we had occasion to hear many habeas corpus applications relating to detention matter, and in all the applications it was found that inordinate delay was caused in disposal of the representation without there being any reasonable excuse. We have a feeling that delay in disposal of the representation is not a bona fide act on the part of the State and its officials. It appears that neither the State Government nor its officials bother about disposal of the representation which has to be disposed of with utmost expedition. No explanation at all has been offered by the State Government in the counter affidavit filed on its behalf in the case in hand. It appears to us that there is deep-rooted conspiracy between the officials of the State and the representatives of the detenu as a result of which inordinate delay is caused in disposal of the representation, and no explanation is furnished in the statement of facts sent to this Court for filing the return. The matter is very serious one and requires immediate attention of highest Executive Officer of the State, namely, the Chief Secretary, who is directed to hold enquiry personally and fix the responsibility upon the delinquent officers/staff for causing delay in disposal of representation filed by the detenu in the present case. After the responsibility is fixed, the State Government/competent authority shall consider desirability of putting the delinquent officers/staff under suspension in contemplation of departmental proceeding. He shall himself examine the records or get the same examined by some other responsible officer in respect of cases in which on account of delay in disposal of the representations filed by other detenus, this Court was compelled to release them from detention th6ugh otherwise the order of detention was not suffering from any of the vices. After the responsibility is fixed, in the like manner the delinquent officers/staff shall also be suitably dealt with. The Chief Secretary is directed to furnish a report to this Court with regard to result of enquiry and action taken by the State Government/competent authority.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ application is allowed, the order of detention passed by the detaining authority on 1.9.1999 contained in Annexure-1 and the order passed by the State Government on 12.9.1999 approving the same contained in Annexure-3 are hereby quashed, and the detenu Kaia alias Prasant Kumar Behera is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.
Let a copy of this judgment be made over to learned Additional Government Advocate for the needful. Another copy of judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Orissa, Bhubaneswar by fax for taking immediate action in the matter.
P. K. Mohanty, J.
7. I agree.