IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.339 of 2010 PRAMOD RAI Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05. 29.06.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. An order for preventive detention of the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act 1981(hereinafter called the Bihar Crime Act) was passed on 24.09.2009. The state government approved the same on 03.10.2009. It was served upon the petitioner under Section 17 of the Bihar Crimes Act on 03.10.2009. The petitioner filed his representation against the same on 11.10.2009. Comments were called for from the District Magistrate and ultimately the representation was rejected on 23.10.2009. The detention has also been approved by the Advisory board on 13.10.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that delay in disposal of the representation of a person preventatively detained stands much higher pedestal, sacrosanct under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and any unreasonable delay in disposal of the representation shall per se vitiate the order for preventive detention as it prejudiciously affects the liberty of the citizen. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not 2 sufficiently explain this delay in disposal of the representation on between 12.10.2009 and 23.10.2009, which must be on a day to day basis and therefore the petitioner was entitled to be set at liberty forthwith. Counsel for the State opposed the application to submit that the time taken in between 12.10.2009 to 23.10.2009 stands fully explained in the counter affidavit. He also voluntarily placed before us the original records with regard to the petitioner’s detention. We have gone through the original records. It shows that after the petitioner filed his representation, it was placed before the Joint Secretary, Home on 14.10.2009. On 15.10.2009, it was placed before the Principal Secretary. On 16.10.2009, it was routed to the Chief Minister and the Home Minister who signed on the same day and the file was then returned by the Chief Minister’s Secretariat on 19.10.2009. The draft order was prepared on 22.10.2009 and the final order issued on 23.10.2009. Undoubtedly the preventive detention stands on a much higher pedestal than custody in a particular case. The Supreme Court in AIR 1999 S.C. 684(Rajammal versus State of Tamil Nadu and Another) on consideration of its earlier judgment held at paragraph 9 as follows: “The position, therefore, now is that if 3 delay was caused on account of any indifference or lapse in considering the representation such delay will adversely affect further detention of the prisoner. In other words, it is for the authority concerned to explain the delay, if any, in disposing the representation. It is not enough to say that the delay was very short. Even longer delay can as well be explained. So the test is not the duration or range of delay, but how it is explained by the authority concerned”. While in AIR 1989 S.C. 1403 (Aslam Ahmed Zahire Ahmed Shaik versus Union of India and others) a delay of seven days which was unexplained was considered sufficient to set aside the order of preventive detention, in AIR 1994 SC 1134 (Sri Ram Sukrya Mhatree versus R.D. Tyagi and others) a much longer delay of 18 days as noticed in paragraph No. 4 and 5 of the judgment was declined interference as the Court was sufficiently satisfied of the explanation furnished with regard to the delay after perusing the original records of detention. In the present case, from the explanation furnished by the respondents as placed before us from the original records the delay of approximately 11 days stands fully explained. We find if difficult to hold of any callousness or an attitude of complete disregard of the liberty of the petitioner by 4 the respondents to hold that there has been unreasonable and unexplained the delay in disposal of his representation vitiating the order of detention. The period having been fully explained to our satisfaction. We find no reason to interfere. The application is dismissed. Shageer (Navin Sinha, J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)