- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. By means of this petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 1-11-2001 passed by respondent No. 4 District Magistrate, Basti under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the gist whereof is that in between the night of 13/14-10-2001 at about 12. 30 a. m. the petitioner with his associates was slaughtering she-calf of a cow in cattle shed of Sukhai son of Muhammad Islam in village Tusayal, P. S. Sonaha, District Basti. The wailing of the she-calf attracted the villagers Diwakar Dhar Dubey and others, but the petitioner and his associates hurled abuses on them, became violent and assaulted them with threats. After having slaughtered the she- calf, he and his associates were making pieces of beef (flesh of she-calf ). The incident gave rise to commotion. The people started running hither and thither and an atmosphere of terror came to be created. The public order was completely disturbed. Additional force had to be deployed to control the situation, as communal tension had been created between two communities by the aforesaid activities of the petitioner and his associates.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. on behalf of respondents No. 1, 4 and 5 and the learned Counsel representing Union of India respondent No. 2. We have carefully considered the matter. The first argument of learned Counsel for petitioner is that it was simply a matter of law and order and had nothing to do with the public order. We find ourselves unable to agree with this submission. The alleged act of the petitioner, slaughtering a she-calf of a cow besides being in contravention of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, offended the religious faith of a sect of the society, revering and venerating cow and its progeny. It is common knowledge that a section of society considers cow and its progeny to be sacred holding the same in highest esteem. The alleged act of the petitioner had the potentiality of unleashing communal disharmony and it did create communal tension disturbing public order of the area. The administration had to take steps to deploy additional force to reduce the tension and control the situation. In our view, it was definitely a matter of public order and not of law and order. Learned A. G. A. also urged that in the case of Tauqeer v. State of U. P. (writ petition No. 4470 of 2002), decided on 11-4-2002 [since reported in 2002 (1) JIC 927 (All)] relating to the same incident, another Bench of this Court had held it to be a matter of public order and not law and order. We respectfully agree to it for our own reasons stated above. It has next been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there has been ample delay in the decision of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government as well as Union of India. On examining the record, we do not find any merit in this argument either. It is found that representation of the petitioner dated 5-11-2001, was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 8-11- 2001, where it was received on 9-11-2001. It was processed immediately and after due consideration it was rejected on 15-11-2001. Similarly, there was no delay in the decision of representation by the Union of India as well. The representation was received by Central Government on the concerned desk in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 16-11-2001 through District Magistrate, Basti vide his letter dated 8-11- 2001. It was immediately processed and was put up before the Under Secretary on 19-11-2001. The Joint Secretary considered the case and forwarded the same to the Union Home Secretary on 20-11- 2001, where the same was rejected on 20-11- 2001. 17th and 18th November, 2001 were holidays and, thus, practically only three days were consumed at the level of Central Government in taking decision on the representation of the detenu.
(3.) IT is obvious that there was no indifference or lapse on the part the State Government and Union of India in considering the representation. IT was immediately processed and decision taken without any loss of time. There is nothing to impute inaction or inertness to either of them. Therefore, the second argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner is also lost. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this habeas corpus petition and it is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;