- (1.) BY the Court. - These habeas corpus petitions challenging the impugned deten ­tion order dated 15 -11 -2000 Annexure 1 to the writ petitions passed under the Na ­tional Security Act.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate Several arguments have been advanced before us. Firstly it is alleged that there was delay by the Central Govern ­ment in deciding the petitioners' representation. In paragraph 26 of the petition it is alleged that on 22 -11 -2000 the petitioner gave several copies of his repre ­sentation to the jail authorities requesting them to forward them to the State and Central Governments. In paragraph 17 of the counter -affidavit of the District Magistrate it is stated that the petitioners submitted their representations to the jail authorities on 27 -11 -2000 but it was not addressed to the Central Government nor any request was made to send it to the Central Government. The District Magistrate received the representation on 28 -11 -2000 and sent it to Superintendent of Police, Sant Kabir Nagar who sent it to the S.O., Bakhira. The Superintendent of Police sent his comments on the repre ­sentation to the District Magistrate on 1 -12 -2000 and the District Magistrate sent the same to the State Government on 3 -12 -2000 through special messenger. Copy of the representation was also sent to the Central Government. The State Govern ­ment rejected the representation of the petitioner and sent a message on 13 -12 -2000 to this effect. In paragraph 18 of the said counter -affidavit it is stated that the detention order was approved by the State Government on 23 -11 -2000. In paragraph 7 of the counter -af ­fidavit of Sri S.K. Pandey, Deputy Jailor, District Jail Basti, it is stated that the Central Government rejected the repre ­sentation vide message dated 3 -1 -2001 which was received in jail on 4 -1 -2001.
(3.) IN our opinion, even assuming that the representation was not addressed to the Central Government, admittedly the same was sent to the Central Government by the District Magistrate on 3 -12 -2000 and the Central Government should have decided the same expeditiously. But it ap ­pears that the Central Government decided it only on 3 -1 -2001. Thus there was un ­reasonable delay by the Central Govern ­ment in deciding the representation.;