- (1.) 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.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Govern ment 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 peti tions and the order passed by the Division Bench of his Court in Habeas Corpus Peti tion No. 46294 of 1999, Nishar Ahmad v. Superintendent, District Jail, Naini, Al lahabad and others, decided on 29-2- 2000. The petitioner herein has been detained pursuant to an order dated 17-7-1999 made by the District Magistrate, Al lahabad 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 deten tion of the petitioner is sought to be quashed is that there was inordinate delay in disposal of the representation dated 2-8- 1999, made by the petitioner against the order of detention. The representation dated 2-8-1999 was received by the District Magistrate on the same date but it was forwarded by him to the State Govern ment on 12-8-1999. Ten days' delay in transmitting the representation to the State Government has not at all been ex plained by the District Magistrate in his counter-affidavit. What has been stated in paragraph No. 5 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Asok Tandon, District Magistrate, Al lahabad is that on receipt of the representation dated 2-8-1999, 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 10-8-1999, the reminder was issued to the S. S. P. , Al lahabad and, thereafter, the police report was received on 11- 8- 1999 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 12-8-1999. " Similar explanation of delay was not found to be cogent and detention of the co-accused Nishar Ahmad was held to be violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. The representation received by the State Government on 13-8-1999 was rejected on 20-8-1999. In the affidavit filed by Sri R. S. Agarwal, Joint Secretary, Home and Con fidential Department, U. P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow, it has been stated that the repre sentation was considered on 16-8-1999 as 14-8-1999 and 15-8-1999 were holidays on account of Second Saturday and Sunday and it was finally rejected by the State Govern ment on 20-8- 1999. There is no explanation for August 17,18 and 19,1999. In the cir cumstances, 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 repre sentation.
(3.) IN the result, the continued deten tion 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. Petition allowed. .;