TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reported the matter to the Central Government on January 31, 1985 Under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act. A representation Under Section 8 of the Act was made by the appellant on February 10, 1985 and it was rejected on February 13, 1985. On March 1, 1985, the Advisory Board's opinion was received by the State Government and on March 16, 1985, the State Government determined that the period of detention of the appellant should be one year. On March 14, 1985, the appellant made four representations, to the President of the Union of India, the Prime Minister, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Each of the representations was styled as representation for revocation cancellation of detention or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealt with on May 31, 1985. It is stated that there was thus no delay at all in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared for the Central Government, was unable to explain to us the cause for the delay in the President's and Prime Minister's Secretariats, but urged that under the Rules of Business, it was the Ministry of Home Affairs that was concerned with orders of detention under the National Security Act and as there was no delay in the disposal of the representations by the Ministry of Home Affairs and, the appellant could not complain of any delay in the consideration of his representation. The learned Additional Solicitor General also urged that the representation to the Central Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Minister's Secretariats on 18th and 19th March 1985 and thereafter, after about two months and one week, the representations were received in the Ministry of Home Affairs. We have no information as to how these representations were dealt with in the President's and the Prime Minister's Secretariats. The learned Additional Solicitor General found himself at a loss to explain the delay and justify the detention. In view of the wholly unexplained and unduly long delay in the disposal of the representations by the Central Government, the further detention of the appellant must be held illegal and he must be set at liberty in the light of the judgments of this court in Sabir Ahmed v. Union of India and Ors. 1980(3) ACR 738 Khatoon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
