IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.607 of 2009 SINTU SINGH @ SANTU SINGH @ NAVIN SINGH SON OF INDU KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SINUARA, P.S.- BAHADURPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA ………… Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DARBHANGA …… Respondents For the petitioner : Mr. Rana Pratap Singh Sr. Advocate Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amarnath Deo, S.C.-X Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma, A.C. to S.C.-X Mr. Prakash Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-X ----------- 5 12.10.2009 Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Amarnath Deo, learned Standing Counsel no. 10. The petitioner challenges the order of preventive detention passed against him under the provisions of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was served with the order of detention passed on 02.04.2009, under Section 12(2) of the Act (Annexure-1), as well as copy of the grounds of detention of the same date served on the petitioner while he was in jail custody in substantive criminal cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of his submissions, placed on record a Hindi version of the same which forms part of the record. The detenu submitted his representation dated 07.04.2009, which was rejected by the State Government on 2 15.05.2009, and was conveyed to the detenu by communication dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure-3). The matter was in the mean while placed before the Advisory Board which affirmed the order of detention on 08.05.2009. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has moved this Court. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, and alleges violation of the procedural safeguards. In his submission, the detenu was not apprised that he has a right of representation before the detaining authority as well as the State Government. There is no material on record to show that the detenu was informed that he has the right of representation before the District Magistrate also. Counsel further submits that there has been unexplained delay in disposal of the representation. He relies on the following reported judgments: (i) 1995 (4) S.C.C. 51 (Kamlesh Kumar Ishwardas Patel versus Union of India & Ors). (ii) A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 684 (Rajammal versus State of Tamil Nadu) (iii) A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2504 State of (Maharastra versus Santosh Shankar Acharya). (iv) 2007 (suppl) P.L.J.R. 937 (Binod Yadav 3 versus State of Bihar & Ors) (v) 2007 (3) B.B.C.J. 132 Uma Shankar Singh versus State of Bihar & Ors. 4. Learned Standing counsel has supported the impugned action. He submits that the orders of detention were served on the petitioner. He was apprised of his right to submit representations before the detaining authority as well as the State Government, and no delay in disposal of the representations is involved. He has also taken through various portions of the impugned order to satisfy us that the petitioner is a serious threat to public order. 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The grounds of detention dated 2.4.2009 reads as follows: “vr% flaVw flag mQZ uohu flag dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftu vk/kkjksa ds v/khu mUgsa fu:) fd;k x;k gS mlds fo:) viuk vH;kosnu ns ldrs gSa A ;fn dksbZ vH;kosnu nsuk gS rks mls v/kh{kd] eaMy dkjk] njHkaxk ds ek/;e ls ljdkj ds mi lfpo] x`g vkj{kh foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk dks lacksf/kr djrs gq, mldh ,d izfr bl dk;kZy; dks Hkh Hkstuk lqfuf’pr djsaxs A g0 ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] njHkaxk Kkikad 180!fof/k ygsfj;kljk; fnukad 02@04@09 izfrfyfi%& dkjk v/kh{kd] eaMy dkjk] njHkaxk dks bldh pkj izfr;kWa rkfeyk djkdj okil djus gsrq Hksth tkrh gS A ,d izfr fu:) O;fDr dks vuqyXud lfgr rkfeyk djk vkSj 'ks"k rhu izfr rkfeyk ds izrhd Lo:i gLrk{kj vFkok vaxwBs ds fu’kku ds lkFk v/kksgLrk{kjh dk;kZy; dks Hksth tk; A 4 ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] njHkaxk A 6. On a perusal of the aforesaid portion of the grounds of detention, we are convinced that there was sufficient compliance in observing the procedural safeguards that the detenu was informed that he has a right of representation before the detaining authority as well as the State Government. It appears that the petitioner exercised his right of representation before the State Government. The detaining authority or the other authorities cannot be blamed for the petitioner’s failure to submit his representation before the detaining authority. It further appears to us that the petitioner’s representation was duly considered by the respondent authorities which was rejected on 15.05.2009, and was communicated to the petitioner on 20.05.2009 (Annexure-3). In the mean while, the same has also been approved by the Advisory Board. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there is no delay involved in the matter. The Supreme Court has observed in Rajammal versus State of Tamil Nadu (supra) that the court can certainly consider whether the delay was occasioned due to permissible reason or unavoidable causes. We are of the view that no willful or unexplained delay is involved in the matter. The contention is rejected. 8. Before we part with the records, we would like to observe that on a perusal of the grounds of detention, it appears to us that the petitioner was unleashed a reign of terror in his 5 area, and has made the day-to-day life and business activities of the residents of that area extremely difficult. Shopkeepers are in a state of terror and are obliged to pay illegal money to the petitioner and his group. He has been effectively operating while in custody. He is an accused in at least 14 substantive cases. It is further stated that while in transit from the jail to the court, he compelled the police personnel to stop the vehicle opposite a particular commercial shop in the township of Muzaffarpur, forcibly went into the shop, and threatened the owner of the shop of dire consequences for their failure to pay him illegal money. It also states that he has been able to make good his escape from the jail as well as from the Civil Court premises. 9. In that view of the matter, we are convinced that order of detention has been passed for valid reasons. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )