Joggu alias Jagvindar Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

V.M. Sahai and S.P. Mehrotra, JJ.—We have heard Sri Awadh Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri J. K. Sisodia, learned A.G.A. appearing for Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, and Sri Awadhesh Rai, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4.

The Petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act vide order dated 1.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The detenu made a representation dated 13.9.2007 to the State Government, which was handed over to the jail authorities on 14.9.2007. The jail authorities sent the representation to the office of District Magistrate on 15.9.2007. On the same day, the District Magistrate called for comments from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad and the report of Senior Superintendent of Police was received by the District Magistrate on 1.10.2007. Thereafter the District Magistrate transmitted the representation to the Central Government, the State Government and the Advisory Board on 2.10.2007.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that there is no explanation of 15 days'' delay, i.e., from 16.9.2007 to 30.9.2007, as to why the report was sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police after 15 days. One could understand that the report could be sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police within a day or two, but he could not sit over the matter for 15 days and send his report to the District Magistrate after 15 days. Further, from the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, it is clear that there is no explanation given in the counter-affidavit for the delay from 16.9.2007 to 30.9.2007.

The Apex Court in Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, has held that un-explained dFelay of five days was fatal and the detention order would be bad in law and contrary to the constitutional obligation on the Central Government to consider and decide the representation of the detenu without any delay.

In Harish Pahwa Vs. State of U. P. and Others, the Supreme Court has taken the similar view.

Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Harish Kumar, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, further detention of the Petitioner under the National Security Act is held to be illegal.

In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Further detention of the Petitioner under the National Security Act is held to be illegal. The Petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless wanted in any other case.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to Sri J.K. Sisodia, A.G.A. for transmission and compliance of the order, within 24 hours.