TMI Blog1974 (9) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... since there is one ground which is, in our opinion, sufficient to dispose of the petition in favour 2-L251 Sup.CI/75 of the petitioner. To appreciate this ground it is necessary to notice a few facts. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on 26th July, 1972and on the same day he made a report to the State Government. The State Government approved the order of detention on 5th August, 1972 and a report was made by it to the Central Government on the same day. It appears that the petitioner was absconding and he could not, therefore, be arrested pursuant to the order of detention until 24th October, 1972. When the petitioner was arrested on 24th October, 1972, the order of detention; was served on him along with the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court in Jayanarayan Sukula v. State of West Bengal([1970] 3 S.C.R 225) that the peremptory language of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution and section 7 of the Act makes it obligatory that the State Government should consider the representation of the detenu as soon as it is received by it . The requirement of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution that the authority making the order of detention should afford the detenu the earliest opportunity of making a repre- sentation against the order of detention would become illusory if there were no corresponding obligation on the State Government to consider the representation of the detenu as early as possible. It is not enough for the State Government to forward the representation to the Advisory Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be any delay in the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the governance of the citizens. A citizen's right raises a correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate Government is to exercise its opinion and judgment on the representation before sending the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board. If the appropriate Government will release the detenu the Government will not send the matter to the Advisory Board. If however the Government will not release the detenu the Government will send the case alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner was received by the State Government after the Advisory Board had made its report and there could then be no question of sending the representation to the Advisory Board. But the State Government had not yet confirmed the order of detention and it was, therefore, bound to consider the representation of the petitioner. It is obvious that even where the Advisory Board reports that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the State Government is not bound to confirm the order of detention. The State Government has to apply its mind, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances relating to the case of the detenu including the opinion of the Advisory Board and come to its own decision whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
