- (1.) M. Katju, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Counsel. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of detention dated 28-1-2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Baghpat under the NSA.
(2.) A perusal of the grounds of detention shows that it is affected that on 27-7-2001 at about 8. 30 a. m. the petitioner and some of his associates armed with fire-arms fired on Harbir Singh, the Principal of Janta Inter College and killed him. Harbir Singh had been Principal of the College for 23 years and was highly Respected amongst the people. His murder has created terror in the locality and there was widespread agitation against his murder. Due to terror of the petitioner and his associates nobody dared to give evidence against him. It is also alleged that petitioner had sought to create a rival managing committee in order to take over the management of the Janta Inter College and when this effort did not succeed he and his associates decided to kill Harbir Singh. When the police went to arrest the petitioner on 4-8-2001 at 4. 20 a. m. , then the police was fired upon. However, ultimately the petitioner was caught and a pistol used in the murder of Harbir Singh was recovered from his possession. It is alleged that due to this murder there is terror in the college also and the college is lying closed. Earlier also petitioner has been accused of extortion and criminal cases had been filed against him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of law and order and not public order. We cannot agree. Sometime even solitary incidents may be cases of public order and it all depends on each case the facts of vide Satvir Singh v. State of U. P. , Habeas Corpus petition No. 26303 of 2001, decided on 25- 1-2002. [since reported in 2002 (1) JIC 413 (All)]. On the facts of the present case we are satisfied that it is a case of public order and not merely law and order. Harbir Singh had been Principal of the college for a long period and was respected in the community and his murder created terror and the college is lying closed. Now days witnesses are after afraid to give an evidence and hence the only way to prevent the activities of criminals like the petitioner is to pass an order under NSA against them if that is not done they will continue to create terror and panic in the community. Learned Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the Central Government decided the representation of the petitioner after unreasonable delay. We do not agree with this as in the counter-affidavit filed by the Central Government it has been stated that the report regarding the petitioner's detention was made by the U. P. Government to the Central Government vide letter dated 4-2-2002 and the same was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002. On 13-2-2002 the Central Government refused to interfere with the order of detention. The petitioner's representation was dated 19-2-2002 and the same was rejected within four days by the Central Government as stated in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the counter- affidavit. In our opinion there was no un- reasonable delay in deciding the representation. The question of delay also depends on the facts of each case and there is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down.
(3.) THERE is no force in this petition and it is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;