RAISUDDIN @ BABU TAMCHI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 340

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, R.B. MISRA

Case summary

3 (3) -of '-the National SeCurity" Act, 1980 challeo8ed the validity of his detentio11 on the· ground that there h~d· been inordinate de!

Judgment text

' . • ' .. v•. ·.. STATE OF. UTTAR PRADESH &AN~. Oclober 7, 1983 · (V. B'r.. :-KRISHNA ERADI AND R. B. M;sRA, JJ. ) . ,, .. Nationa{ Security Acf - 19B~SeC. 3. (3)-Dete~tion. order-Delay"- in· 7 dealing with detenu':1 representaJion vitiates detention oTdei-Whether . there is -- -- ... 1982, the District Magistrate had to emergently leave his headquarters because of the disturbances tha. t had occurred in other localities within his Jurisdi. ction where his presence was urgently needed for tackling the explosive situation. After he rcturhed to the headjmirters on the evening of 1st December, the District Magistrate without losing any further time forwarded the petitioner's representation to the State Government on the 3rd December together with his report and the comments. received from the Senior Superintendent of Police.

We arc fully satisfied on our perusal of the file and the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner's representation has. been. dealt with by the Dis- • 0 trict Mftgistrate with all the promptness that was rea,oriably possible under the circumstances then obtaining·in Moradabad city and the snrrounding areas arid that the charge of lnordinaic. delay levelled by the petitioner is baseless. ,In this context we consider it necessary , to emphasise that the questioff whether the representation submitted ·by a. detenu· has been dealt with all reasonable promptness and ·· deligence is to be decidad not by the application of any rigid or inflexible rule or set formula nor by a mere arithmetical counting ' . . of dates, but by a careful scrutiny of the facts and, circumstances of .

~ each case; if on such examination, it is found that there was any remissness, indifference, or avoidable delay on the part of the detaining authority/State Government in dealing with the rep~esentation, the Court will undoubtedly treat it as a factor vitiating the continued / oetention of the detenu; on the other hand, if the Court is satisfied that the delay was OCCassioned not by any lack Of deligence OF pro. mptness of attention on ! he part of the authority concerned, but due. to unavoidable circumstances or reasons entirely beyond his control, such delay will not be treated as furnishing a ground for the grant of relief to the detenu against his continued detention. As already indicated, the case before us falls under the latte. r category inasmuch as we are satisfied that there was no avoidable delay on the part of the District Magistrate in forwarding the petitioner's representation.

The last point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that there ,has been a violation of the provisions of the section 10 of the Act because the Advisory Board had not considered the case of the petitioner within three weeks from the date. of detention. As already noticed, the petitioner submitted his representation to the District Magistrate against the. detention onli on 24. 11,1982 eVtin thouah he . "' had been arrested and placed under detention on 8th November. Th~ ll. AISUDDIN v. U. P• STATE (V.. B. Eradi,J. ) 345 sard representation reached the State Government-on 6th December, 1982. In the meantime, the petitioner's case· had been referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board . on the 18th November ·itself. The representation received from the petitioner was forwarded by the State Government to the State Advisoty Board on 9th December, 1982.

The Advisory Board held its meeting on 10th December, 1982 and, -after affording a personal hearing to the petitioner, made its report finding sufficient cause for the detention of th~ 11etitioner. The argument put forward on behalf of the retitioner is that section. 10 mandatorily enjoins the State Government to take steps to see that the case of the detenu is considered by· tl)_e Advisory Board within three weeks frol]l the da. te of detention.. We are unable. to see any merit in this contention. Section 10 reads : + "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention ·or(Jer has been made' under this Act, the appropriate Gov~rnmeni shall, within three.

weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9' the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation; if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of sectiO'll 3, also the report by such officer under subsection (4) oftha. t section. " Under the section; a 'duty is cast on the appropriate Government, to "Place before" the Advisory" Board constituted under ·section 9 within three weeks from the date ofdetention, tbe grounds on which the. order of detention has been made and the representation, "- 11 if any, made by the person affected by the order. The petitioner's counsel wanted us to interpret the words "plac~ before the Advisory Board" as meaning "get considered by tbe Advisory Board''. We are wholly·unable to accede to this argument. Under the terms of.

the section, tlte duty cast on the appropriate Gpvemment is to forward . IQ the Advisory. Board constituted under' section 9 within three weeks from the date of detention, the papers pertaining to the detention of the detenu consisting pf the grounds on which· the o~der ·has been made, the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, etc. It is to be remembered that the Advisory Board is not an R entity subordinate to the Government. It is a wholly independent l;>ody cons. istin~ of persons who are or have been or are qualified to be 346. SUPREMB COURT REPORTS (1984] I s. c. R. appointed as Judg~s ofa! lJigh Court. It is entirely for the Advisory Board to regulate its schedule of holding meetings and conducting its business in accordance with the procedure laid down under section 11 of the Act which has specified a time. limit or seven weeks from the date. o. f detention for the submission of the Board's report to the appropriate Government.

It is, therefore, wholly wrong to interpret the words "place before" as meaning anything more than forward . B to or submit befo_re the Advisory Board the relevant papers relating to the detention of the detenu. In the present case, the Advisory Board has disposed of the petitioner's case well within the period of seven weeks specified in sub-section (I) of Section 11 . of the Act. This contention of the petitioner is also, therefore, devoid of substance. • The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing discussion is that thereis no ground whatever justifying any interference with the order. of detention passed against the petitioner and the writ petion is, tlterefor. e, <;mly to be dism'issed. D H. S. K. Petition dismis~ed. .. •• • ..