POONAM SRIVASTAV, YOGESH CHANDRA GUPTA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Bishram Tiwan. Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Sri N.I. Jafri Advocate on behalf of Union of India respondent No. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The habeas corpus peti­tion is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner/detenu has challenged the order of detention dated 11.11.2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria, respondent No. 2 under section 3(2) of Na­tional Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter re­ferred to as NSA) and consequential order dated 4.1.2010 confirming the detention order under section 12(1) of the NSA.
(2.) THE petitioner is involved in Case Crime No. 1407 of 2009, under sections 489-B and 489-C, I.P.C. since he was appre­hended with three notes of Rs. 500/- de­nomination which were counterfeit notes. The detenu was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2009 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 27630 of 2009. Prabhu Nath v. State of U.P. Copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate while de­taining the petitioner, has invoked the provisions of NSA as a preventive measure to ensure that the counterfeit notes is not in circulation which is detrimental to the economy of the State and also effects es­sential services. The apprehension of the District Magistrate on the basis of police report forwarded to him was that in case detenu is set at liberty, there are chances of repeating the offence in future. Thus in the interest of public and society and national economy his detention is necessary. The petitioner claims that he gave a representation on 17.11.2009 to the Advi­sory Board, President of India, Home Secre­tary, Govt. of U.P. and Home Minister. Govt. of U.P. as well as to the Qistrict Magistrate, Deoria. The District Magistrate, Deoria has filed detailed counter affidavit disputing the fact that the representation which the petitioner claims to have given on 17.11.2009, was in fact submitted on 24.11.2009. 17.11.2009 is the date of ap­proval of the detention order dated 11.11.2009. The said representation dated 24.11.2009 was received by the District Magistrate, Deoria through Superinten­dent, District Jail, Deoria on the same day. Comments were immediately called for from the sponsoring authority and after receiving the same, the District Magistrate prepared his own comments on 26.11.2009. The representation was rejected on the same day by him and the order was com­municated to the petitioner through jail authorities.
(3.) THE petitioner's representation dated 24.11.2009 along with parawise comments was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Deoria to the State Government vide its letter dated 26.11.2009. It was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 27.11.2009. 28.11.2009 and 29.11.2009 were holidays on account of Saturday and Sunday. The State Govern­ment sent copies of the said representation and parawise comments to the U.P. Advi­sory Board as well as Central Government by two separate letters on 30.11.2009. Sub­sequently concerned section of the State Government examined and submitted a detailed note on 1.12.2009. The Under Sec­retary, Home (Confidential) Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow examined the detailed note on 2.12.2009. The Joint Secretary also checked it on the same day i.e. 2.12.2009. The Special Secretary examined it on 3.12.2009 and thereafter the Sec­retary examined the representation on 3.12.2009. The file was then submitted to the higher authorities for final orders and after due consideration, the State Govern­ment rejected the representation on 3.12.2009. The order was communicated to the petitioner through the district authori­ties by the State Government vaya Radio­gram dated 4.12.2009. This specific asser­tion is detailed in the affidavit filed by Un­der Secretary, Home Sri Prem Shanker in paragraph 3 of his counter affidavit.;