S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) Focal point of attack in the present petition is on the validity of incessant detention of the petitioner stemming from the order dated 17.4.1999, passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur, in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. 1980 (In short the 'Act') in order to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the 'maintenance of public order'.
(2.) Skipping the unnecessary details, the episodal facts are that the petitioner, who was arrested in Case Crime No. 135 of 1999 under Sections 302, 307, 300B, 134 I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2) 7 of the SC/ST Act was ordered to be preventively detained by means of the order dated 17.4.1999 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public order. The detention order was accorded approval by the State Government on 21.4.1999, i.e. circumscribed in the statutory period of twelve days and the approval was conveyed to the detenu vide letter dated 23.4.1999. The detention order was lent affirmance by the State Government vide order dated 27.5.1999 under Section 12 of the Act inuring for a period of twelve months, The detenu had submitted his representation dated 26.4.1999 to the Jail authorities on 27.4.1999 which was received at the end of the District Magistrate on the same day. After obtaining comments from the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority sent the representation studded with his own comments thereon to the State Government as well as to the Central Government and the Advisory Board on 29.4.1999. The representation was received by the State Government on 3.5.1999 and by the Central Government on 4.5.1999. The concerned section of the State Government scanned the papers and prepared a report and the case was then scrutinised by the under Secretary and Joint Secretary on 5.5.1999 and thereafter by the Secretary. Home and Confidential Department who examined the representation on 6.5.1999 and submitted for final orders before the competent authority in the Government who rejected the representation on 7.5.1999. So far as the Central Government is concerned, the Minister of State for Home Affairs reckoned the representation into consideration and rejected the same on 4.6.1999.
(3.) The representation dated 26.4.1999 along with comments of the detaining authority was received by the Central Government on 4.5.1999 and it was reckoned into consideration and rejected by the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 4.6.1999. The delay in between is sought to be explained and justified on the premises that the representation received on 4.5.1999 was "Immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain vital information, i.e.. the opinion of the Advisory Board required for its further consideration, to be obtained from the State Government, and accordingly, through a crash wireless message dated 5.5.1999, the said information was desired. The required information, it is further stated in the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sushil Kumar, Under Secretary, Minister of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 2.6.1999 vide State Government Fax dated 28.5.1999 and the matter was then placed before the Under Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 3.6.1999 who carefully considered the same and with her comments, put up the same before the Joint Secretary. Ministry of Home Affairs on 3.6.1999. The Joint Secretary, it is further stated in the counter-affidavit, considered the case and with his comments forwarded the same before the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 3.6.1999 and the latter considered the case of the detenu and rejected his representation on 4.6.1999.;