Judgment:
ORDER
Anil Dev Singh, J.
1. The petitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the Commis-sioner of Police on 21.5.1998 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.
2. The petitioner submitted his representation on 10.7.1998 to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for onward transmission to the State Government as well as the Central Government. While the State Government disposed of the representation of the petitioner on 23.7.98 the Central Govt. disposed it of on 24.8.1998. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for the Central Government that the representation of the petitioner reached the Central Government through the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21.7.1998. It is also not disputed that the representation was disposed of on 24.8.1998. The Explanationn of the first respondent for taking 33 days in disposing of the representation is contained in the affidavit of Mr. Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The relevant portion of the affidavit reads as follows :
'On receiving the said representation the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi was asked to furnish the opinion of the Advisory Board on the representation of the detenu vide Ministry of Home Affair's letter dated 22.7.1998, which was required to consider the repre sentation. That the opinion of the Advisory Board was received in the concerned Desk of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 4.8.1998 vide the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi's letter dated 3.8.1998. After receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board on 4.8.1998, the matter could not be placed before the Home Minister immedi ately because the file was already under submission to him for considering the representation of the detenu. The Home Minister after considering the case desired on 12.8.1998 to obtain the opinion of the Advisory Board. Hence, after receiving the file back in the concerned Desk on 13.8.1998, the case of the detenu Along with the opinion of the Advisory Board was resubmitted to Director, Ministry of Home Affairs on 13.8.1998, who considered the case and put up the same before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.8.1998. The Joint Secretary considered the case and put up the same before the Home Minister on 17.8.1998. The Home Minister himself duly considered the case and rejected the representation of the detenu on 24.8.1998.'
3. From the above Explanationn, it is clear that from 4.8.1998 to 12.8.1998 and from 17.8.1998 to 23.8.1998 the representation of the petitioner was not dealt with at all. It has been emphasised by the Apex Court & this Court in several decisions that the representation of a detenu should be considered by the concerned authority with utmost expedition as otherwise valuable right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution is violated. The authorities are required to show that the representation of the detenu was being continuously dealt with from the date of its filing to date of its disposal.
4. In Kundanbhai Dulabhai Shaikh v. District Magistrate, Ahmedabad and Others, 1996 SCC 470=(1996) 1 CCR 199, the Supreme Court in regard to the question of delay in the disposal of the representations of detenues by the concerned authorities observed as follows :
'In spite of law laid down above by this Court repeatedly over the past three decades, the Executive, namely, the State Govern ment and its officers continue to be in their old, lethargic fashion and make all other files rusting in the Secretariat for various reasons including red-tapism, the representation made by a person deprived of his liberty, continue to be dealt with in the same fashion. The Government and its officers will not give up their habit of maintaining a consistent attitude of lethargy. So also, this Court will not hesitate in quashing the order of detention to restore the 'liberty and freedom' to the person whose detention is allowed to become bad by the Government itself on account of his representation not being disposed of at the earliest.'
5. Thus the lethargy of the Government in dealing with the representation of the petitioner cannot be excused. Due to delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the Central Government, the continuous detention of the petitioner has been rendered illegal.
6. In the circumstances, thereforee, the writ petition succeeds. The rule is made absolute. The petitioner shall be set free immediately, if not required in some other case. The operative portion of the order shall be communicated by the office to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail immediately.
Writ petition allowed.