Murari Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

J.C. Gupta and V.N. Singh, JJ.—Learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated before us that the Petitioner does not intend to file any rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

We have heard Sri R. B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap learned A.G.A. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri K. M. Pandey for Union of India, Respondent No. 4.

By means of this habeas corpus petition, the Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 17.8.2001, Annexure-5 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 10.10.2001 whereby the detention order was confirmed by the State Government on the report of Advisory Board.

It appears that the District Magistrate passed an order dated 17.8.2001, detaining the Petitioner u/s 3, Sub-section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The grounds of detention, which were served on the Petitioner, disclose that the Petitioner was arrested with seven associates at about 11.30 p.m. on 31.7.2001, while committing offence of wire cutting on 11 K.V. electric line between five pillars. They were apprehended when they were loading heavy quantity of removed wire in Tata Sumo No. U. P.-80 U 1587. This act of the Petitioner disrupted electric supply and villagers were deprived of the use of electricity for running their tube-wells, etc. causing damage to the standing paddy crops.

The only ground challenging the detention order urged by the Petitioner''s counsel before us is that though the detention order was made on 17.8.2001 by the District Magistrate but the same was approved on 10.10.2001 in violation of the provisions of Section 10 and Section 11 (1) of the Act. In the counter-affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Agarwal on behalf of the State of U. P., in paragraph 3, it is clearly stated that the case of the Petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government by forwarding the detention order, grounds of detention and all other connected papers on 25.5.2001, i.e., within three weeks from the date of actual detention as required u/s 10 of the Act. 26.9.2001 was fixed as the date for hearing before the Advisory Board. The Petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board on the date fixed and after hearing him in person and also considering his representation, the Advisory Board sent its report along with complete record to the State Government expressing that in its opinion, there was sufficient cause for detention of the Petitioner. The report of the Advisory Board was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 1.10.2001, i.e., well within seven weeks from the date of detention of the Petitioner. A perusal of provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act clearly indicate that in every case where a detention order has been made, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order. The Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose, and if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, shall submit its report to the appropriate Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. The requirement of these provisions, thus is that the State Government is required to place before the Advisory Board the record of detention order along with the representation, if any, of the detenu within three weeks from the date of detention, and thereafter the Advisory Board is required to submit its report to the State Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned. In the present case, the detention order was passed on 17.8.2001. All the relevant material was placed before the Advisory Board on 25.8.2001, i.e., well within three weeks from the date of actual detention. The Petitioner was then heard in person by the Advisory Board and the Board submitted its report to the State Government through letter dated 29.9.2001. This was done within seven weeks from the date of detention of the Petitioner. The time limit of seven weeks is prescribed for taking a decision by the Advisory Board and not for the approval of the report of Advisory Board by the State Government. As already pointed out above, the Advisory Board had taken its decision on 29.9.2001 which was well within seven seeks from the date of detention of the Petitioner. Thus, we find that there has been no breach of the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. No force is thus found in the submission of the Petitioner''s counsel. No other point has been pressed before us.

Accordingly this habeas corpus petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.