Allahabad High Court
Jai Prakash Shastri vs Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar And Ors. on 10 October, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001CRILJ349
Bench: M. Katju, Onkareshwar Bhatt
ORDER
1. Sri Kamlesh Narain appears for Union of India and Sri Mahendra Pratap for the State.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 24-2-2000 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.
4. A large number of points have been taken in this petition but in our opinion this petition deserves to be allowed on the very first point, namely, that the detaining authority did not communicate to the detenue that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority as is required by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya 2000 (8) JT SC 374 : AIR 2000 SC 2504.
5. No doubt this point was not expressly taken in the pleadings in the petition but on 28-9-2000 we had passed an order directing the learned Government Advocate to file a supplementary affidavit stating whether the detaining authority intimated to the detenue that he has a right to make a representation against his detention to the detaining authority. In the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate it has not been stated that the said authority communicated to the detenue that he has a right to make representation against the detention order to the detaining authority (District Magistrate). Hence we hold that the detaining authority did not communicate to the detenue that he has a right to make representation to the , detaining authority.
6. Learned Government Counsel has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India 1995 SCC (Crl) 643. That decision has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra's ' case (supra). Hence it cannot be said that the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya's case (supra) was delivered in ignorance of the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel's case (supra). It is not open to this Court to say that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya's case (supra) misinterpreted the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel's case (supra).
7. Learned Government counsel has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amin Mohammed Qureshi v. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay (1994) 2 SCC 355 : AIR 1994 SC 1333. This decision, no doubt, is of a two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court but it was subsequently followed by the five Judge Bench in Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel's case (supra). Learned Government counsel also relied on 1994 (2) SCC 355 : AIR 1994 SC 1333 (para 17).
8. However, in view of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya's case (supra), we are bound to follow the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact this decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Nawab Bulha v. Union of India in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 27252 of 2000 delivered on 20-9-2000.
9. Following the said decision, this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 24-2-2000 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless he is not wanted in some other criminal or preventive detention case.
10. Learned Government Counsel prayed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion since the point involved is covered by the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Santosh Shankar Acharya's case, leave is refused. A copy of this judgment shall be supplied by tomorrow to learned counsels for the parties on payment of usual charges.