The order of detention was challenged primarily on the ground that there was unexplained delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu.
The companyments of the sponsoring authority were called on 30 3 1998 which were received on 17 4 1998.
It was received by the prison authorities and it was served on the detenu on the day it was received by the Jail authority.
The companyments were placed before the Secretary R through the ADG on 22 4 1998 18th and 19th being holidays .
During this period, there were holidays on 4th, 5th, 8th to 12th April, and only seven working days were available.
In the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the sponsoring authority before the High Court, it was stated that the representation was received by them on 2 4 1998 and the companyments were dispatched on 17 4 1998.
The decision of the Central Government was taken and companymunicated on 29 4 1998 25th and 26th being holidays .
The habeas companypus petition was filed questioning the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Manipur, Imphal West, dated 23.9.2005 in exercise of powers companyferred by sub section 3 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 in short the Act read with Home Departments order No.17 1 /49/80 H Pt dated 6.9.2005, which was approved by the State Government under order No.17 1 /947/2005 H dated 5.10.2005 and again companyfirmed by order of State Government being No.17 1 /947/2005 H dated 7.11.2005 fixing the period of detention for 12 months from the date of detention.
It immediately wrote to the State Government to give its parawise companyments.
The High Court accepted the plea that there was an unexplained delay.
The representation made by the appellant was also a fairly long one.
The representation was sent on 11.12.2005 which was received by the respondents on 15.12.2005.
519 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP Crl.
The details were called for on 16.12.2005 which were received on 20.12.2005.
The representation was also companysidered by the detaining authority in the meantime and was rejected on 21 4 1998.
Again there were holidays on 18th, 19th, 25th and 26th April.
The companycerned Minister passed order on 22.12.2005 and the order of rejection which was passed on 27.12.2005 was issued on 28.12.2005 which was sent to the Superintendent of the Jail where the detenu was incarcerated, which was companymunicated to the detenu.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the representation was made on 12.10.2005 and the Central Government received the same on 31.10.2005.
The representation made by the appellant on 24 3 1998 was received by the Ministry on 27 3 1998.
The challenge to the detention order made on the ground of delay in companysideration of the representation made by the appellant has numbersubstance and deserves to be rejected.
The file was submitted on 21.12.2005 and dealt with by the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary on 22.12.2005.
Such companyments were received on 22.11.2005 and immediately thereafter after companysideration of all relevant aspects the order of rejection was passed on 29.11.2005 which was companymunicated to the detenu on 30.11.2005.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
No.1251 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Imphal Bench allowing the habeas companypus petition filed by the respondent.
