TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner's Liberty Restored: Court Invalidates Detention Order Due to State's Unjustified Delay in Representation Review.</h1> The writ petition was allowed by the SC, resulting in the petitioner being set at liberty due to the State Government's failure to consider his ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.2. Delay in considering the representation by the State Government.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of the Detention Order:The petitioner, through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenged the detention order issued under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, claiming it was void and unconstitutional. The detention order was made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, on December 10, 1971, under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 3 of the Act, citing the petitioner's involvement in unlawful activities that induced panic and terror among peaceful citizens. The State Government approved the detention order on December 16, 1971, and reported it to the Central Government the same day. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on January 4, 1972, and his case was placed before the Advisory Board on January 7, 1972. The Advisory Board gave its decision on February 16, 1972, and the State Government confirmed the detention on March 17, 1972. The petitioner's challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act was not pressed during the arguments.2. Delay in Considering the Representation:The primary contention was the inordinate delay in considering the petitioner's representation by the State Government, which received the representation on January 4, 1972, but only considered it on February 12, 1972. The explanation for the delay, as provided in the counter-affidavit, cited slow and irregular movement of files due to a 'go-slow movement' by State Government employees and a sudden increase in detention cases. The State argued that this delay was unintentional and beyond its control, requesting the Court to condone it.The Court examined precedents, including Nagendra Nath Mondal v. The State of West Bengal, where a 34-day delay was not deemed inordinate due to the specific circumstances of the case. The Court reiterated that no hard and fast rule exists regarding the time frame within which the State Government must consider a representation, emphasizing that each case must be decided on its own facts.In Arun Kumar Roy alias Kata v. The State of West Bengal, the Court noted that although the Act does not explicitly mandate the State Government to consider the representation, it is implied that the Government must act with urgency. The Court also referenced Kanti Lal Bose v. State of West Bengal, where a 28-day unexplained delay invalidated the detention, underscoring the imperative necessity of expeditious consideration of representations.The Court highlighted the importance of personal liberty and the constitutional obligation to consider representations promptly. It held that the State Government's failure to consider the petitioner's representation with reasonable dispatch rendered the detention invalid. The Court concluded that the delay from January 4, 1972, to February 12, 1972, was unjustified, as the 'go-slow movement' had ended by October 1971, and no explanation was provided for the situation in January and February 1972.Conclusion:The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be set at liberty forthwith due to the State Government's failure to consider his representation expeditiously, thereby invalidating the detention order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
