- (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner stated before us that the petitioner does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.
(2.) WE have heard Sri R.B. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahendra Pratap learned A.G.A. for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri K.M. Pandey for Union of India respondent No. 4. By means of this Habeas Corpus Petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 17 -8 -2001, Annexure -5 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 10 -10 -2001 whereby the detention order was confirmed by the State Government on the report of Advisory Board.
(3.) IT appears that the District Magistrate passed an order dated 17 -8 -2001 detaining the petitioner under Section 3 sub -section (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services of essential to the community. The grounds of detention, which were served on the petitioner disclose that the petitioner was arrested with seven associates at about 11.30 p.m. on 31 -7 -2001 while committing offence of wire cutting on 11 K.V. electric line between five pillars. They were apprehended when they were loading heavy quantity of removed wire in Tata Sumo No. U.P. -80 U 1587. This act of the petitioner disrupted electric supply and villagers were deprived of the use of electricity for running their tube -wells etc. causing damage to the standing paddy crops.;