The State Government on receipt of the said wireless message on 2 5 1992 forwarded the necessary information by wireless message on 6 5 1992 see affidavit of Shri Kelkar dated 9 7 1992 .
The learned Counsel for the detenu challenged the order of detention, before us, on the following grounds There was inordinate delay in companysidering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government and as such the detenu was denied the right under Article 22 5 of the Constitution.
On 12 5 1992 the detaining authority forwarded the parawise companyments by post see paragraph 28 of the affidavit of the detaining authority dated 4 7 1992 .
The said Special Secretary after processing the material and representation placed it before Home Minister on 23 5 1992.
In the wireless message dated 5 5 1992 the State Government was also requested to forward parawise companyments to the representation.
Home Minister himself companysidered the detenus representation and rejected the same on 28 5 1992.
According to the learned Counsel the representation was submitted on April 24, 1992 and the rejection was companymunicated to him on June 15, 1991.The companytention is that there is numberexplanation for the gross delay on the part of the Central Government in companysidering the detenus representation.
There was number application of mind on the part of the detaining authority as much as the file companytaining near about 200 pages including documents in Marathi was sent to him on April 3, 1992 and the same day the detention order was issued.
The decision was companymunicated to the jail authority by wireless message followed by a companymunication dated 4 6 1992.
These parawise companyments were received by the Central Government on 20 5 1992.
A companyy of this representation was received by the detaining authority on 8 5 1992.
If the chain of prejudicial activities is taken into account with the fact that the detenu was absconding and after his arrest he was released on bail on 3 4 1992, then in our opinion the impugned order issued on 3 4 1992 cannot be branded either as a delayed order and or based on stale incidents which have numbernexus to the impugned order.
Pandharinath Laxman Waringe has been detained, by an order dated April 3, 1992, under Section 3 2 of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Coming to the lag of delay between 20 5 1992 and 28 5 1992, Mr. Ishwar Singh in paragraph 7 of his affidavit in reply has stated that the representation along with material was put to before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 21 5 1992 who after careful companysideration with his companyments put up the same before the Special Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 22 5 1992.
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition by its judgment dated July 21, 1992.
Panna challenged the detention order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
The detention order is founded on four incidents which took place between June 2, 1990 and September 13, 1991.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, gone through the judgment of the High Court, read the grounds of detention and examined other relevant material on the record.
The detention order was served on the detenu on April 3, 1992 itself.
The High Court examined the original records and came to the companyclusion that there was numberdelay in companysidering the representation of the detenu by the Central Government.
The first ground of detention is year and five months earlier to the date of detention order.
There has been long delay in issuing the detention order.
His wife Smt.
Vital information needed by the Central Government was as under Order of detention 2.
The High Court in a well reasoned judgment, has dealt with all the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court.
Special leave granted.
Information as regards report of the Advisory Board.
Date of actual detention and 3.
