AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.N. Sarma, J.—This writ application has been filed challenging the order of detention dt. 15.9.99 issued by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati detaining the Petitioner under National Security Act, 1980. The order of detention is at Annexure-A. That reads as follows:
"Order of Detention Under N.S.A. 1980" Whereas the undersigned is satisfied on the basis of the dossier prepared by the Superintendent of Police, Kamrup, Guwahati in respect of the person known as Shri Tarani Kanta Deka @ Haygrib Dutta, son of Shri Ghana Kanta Deka of Village-Titkuchi, P.S. Baihata, District-Kamrup, Assam that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him under the National Security Act, 1980, as amended.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, as amended, read with Government Notification No. P.L.A. 326/97/30-A dated 24th August, 1999, the undersigned hereby directs that the said Shri Tarani Kanta Deka @ Haygrib Dutta, son of Shri Ghana Kanta Deka of Village-Titkuchi, R.S. Baihata, Dist Kamrup, Assam be detained in the District Jail, Nalbari until further orders.
The person against whom this order of preventive detention is made for compelling reasons is already in judicial custody but is likely to be released withereupon it is highly probable that he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and prejudicial to the maintenance of Public order after his released.
Given under my hand and seal on this 5th Day of September, 1999.
In paragraph 18 of the writ application it has been stated interalia as follows:
The Petitioner further states that the Central Government is legally bound to perform its statutory duty u/s 14 of the Act on receipt of the information of detention of the detenue either from its own sources including that supplied u/s 3 of the Act or from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation and the Central Government not having exercised its discretion u/s 4 of the Act, commits gross violation of the Act and the Constitution.
No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Union of India though this matter is pending before this Court from 12.11.99. Thereafter, this matter was listed on different dates and time was granted. But an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2, 3,4 and 5 and in this affidavit nothing has been stated regarding disposal of the representation which was filed before the authority i.e. Union of India Even to day Mr Bhowmik, learned C.G.S.C. is not in a position to say whether the representation has been disposed of by the Union of India or not.
This aspect of the matter is covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in Munna Tuin Vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow and Others, . wherein it has been: pointed out by the Supreme Court that if in such a matter affidavit-in-opposition is not filed by the authority the points urged/pleas made shall be deemed to be admitted. That is what has happened in the instant case. Accordingly, on this short ground alone the detention order quoted above shall stand quashed and the Petitioner shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in connection with any other case.
Heard Mr N. Dutta, learned advocate for the Petitioner, Mr Das, learned Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Mr Bhowmik, learned C.G.S.C. for the Respondent No. 1. The State Govt. produced the record, that record is returned to Mr Das.