- (1.) HEARD learned Coun sel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the im pugned detention order dated 6-12-2000 under the NSA Vide Annexure-1 to this petition. Several arguments have been ad vanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, but in our opinion the very first argument is sufficient to allow the Writ Peti tion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he made a representation against the detention order on 19-12-2000 but although the District Magistrate received it on the same day L e. 19-12-2000 as is evident from paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of Mustafa Khan the Dy. Jail of District Jail Jaunpur but it was forwarded by the D. M. to the State Government only on 8-1-2001 as is evident from paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit of the D. M. Thus there was a delay of about nineteen days on the post of the D. M. in forwarding the petitioner's representation to the Central and State Government.
(2.) IN our opinion this delay on the part of the D. M. it self is sufficient to allow this Writ Petition. It has been held in large number of Writ Petitions by the Supreme Court as well as by this Court that such delay is fatal vide Lola @ Virendra Kumar v. D. M. and others, 1999 (1) JIC 143 and Rajammalv. Stateoftamil Naduandanother, 1999 (1) Jlc 524 (SC ). . In view of the aforesaid decision the Writ Petition is allowed.
(3.) THE impugned detention order dated 6-12-2000 is quashed. THE petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other Criminal or Preventive Case. Sri Sheshmani Mishra learned Coun sel appeared for Union of India and learned Government Advocate for State. Petition allowed. .;