Pappu vs Union of India & Ors.

S. R. Singh and Krishna Kumar, JJ.—Both these petitions arise out of detention order made by the District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and grounded on the same facts. With the consent of the parties'' Counsel these petitions were taken up together for convenient disposal by a common order. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 43881 of 1999 is to be taken as the leading case.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate representing as well as Shri Shish Mani Misra the State and Sri K.N. Pandey representing the Union of India.

We have also perused the writ petitions and the order passed by the Division Bench of his Court in Habeas Corpus Petition No. 46294 of 1999, Nishar Ahmad v. Superintendent, District Jail, Naini, Allahabad and others, decided on 292 2000.

The petitioner herein has been detained pursuant to an order dated 1771999 made by the District Magistrate, Allahabad in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. The basis of detention of the petitioner herein was the same as that of Nishar Ahmad in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 46294 of 1999. The ground on which the continued detention of the petitioner is sought to be quashed is that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation dated 281999, made by the petitioner against the order of detention. The representation dated 281999 was received by the District Magistrate on the same date but it was forwarded by him to the State Government on 1281999. Ten days'' delay in transmitting the representation to the State Government has not at all been explained by the District Magistrate in his counteraffidavit. What has been stated in paragraph No. 5 of the counteraffidavit of Sri Asok Tandon, District Magistrate, Allahabad is that on receipt of the representation dated 281999, it was found necessary to obtain the police report before preparing parawise comments ot certain allegations made in the application and accordingly, the police report was "called for several times" and when the same was not received before 1081999, the reminder was issued to the S.S.P., Allahabad and, thereafter, the police report was received on 11 81999 and then "without any delay, parawise comment was prepared and the representation was sent with parawise comment to the State Government through special messenger on 1281999." Similar explanation of delay was not found to be cogent and detention of the coaccused Nishar Ahmad was held to be violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The representation received by the State Government on 1381999 was rejected on 2081999. In the affidavit filed by Sri R.S. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, it has been stated that the representation was considered on 1681999 as 1481999 and 1581999 were holidays on account of Second Saturday and Sunday and it was finally rejected by the State Government on 2081999. There is no explanation for August 17,18 and 19,1999. In the circumstances, therefore, we are of the view that continued detention of the petitioner herein is vitiated due to the reason of the unexplained delay in deciding the representation .

In the result, the continued detention of the petitioner is held illegal. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case.