- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Through this petition the petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 29-1-2002 passed against him by Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Bijnor under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his detention thereunder. The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, that on 7-12-2001 at about 9. 30 p. m. 98 bundles wire weighing 12 quintals were recovered from the possession of petitioner loaded on Canter No. UP 20 D 1685. The recovered wire related to number of thefts from different places on 15/16-6-2001, 19/20-6-2001, 23/24-11-2001 and 1/2-12- 2001. The wire was meant and was being utilized for supply of electricity. The thefts had been committed by cutting wire from different places, disrupting electric supply. The petitioner was an accused in these cases. The detention order was passed on the ground that the act of the petitioner was prejudicial for maintenance of supply of electricity.
(2.) THE counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel representing Union of India-respondent No. 1. It is argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the detention order has been passed by Respondent No. 3 illegally in a mechanical manner without application of mind and there was no justification for his detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. It may be pointed out that the sufficiency of the material available to the detaining authority is not to be examined by this Court. While considering the writ petition of or on behalf of the detenu the Supreme Court or the High Court does not sit in appeal over the detention order. In the case at hand, in our opinion, there was credible material for detaining authority to form satisfaction warranting his detention under the National Security Act, foundation being the recovery of huge quantity of stolen wire (98 bundles weighing 12 quintals) from him relating to several thefts of such wire which was being used for the supply of electricity. The act of the petitioner was prejudicial to the maintenance of electric supply, an essential service to the community. We, therefore, reject the first argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It has next been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was delay in the decision of the representations of the petitioner by the State as well as the Union of India. It has been urged that he gave representation to the Jail authority on 31-1-2002 and his representation was rejected by the State Government after inordinate delay and by the Union of India on 13-3-2002. It has also been pointed out that there is discrepancy in the stand as per the affidavits filed by Respondent No. 4 Superintendent, District Jail, Bijnor and that of the Respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Bijnor as to when he made the representation. In the affidavit filed by Girdhari Lal, Deputy Jailor, it has been averred that he submitted representation to the Jail authority on 16-2-2002 and on the same day, it was sent to District Magistrate, Bijnor. However, the affidavit of District Magistrate, Bijnor states that he made representation to the Jail authority on 13-2-2002 and it was received by him (District Magistrate) the same day. It appears that the date has wrongly been mentioned as '16-2-2002' in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Jailor because of typographical error. It had actually been made to the Jail authority on 13-3-2002, on which date it was received by the District Magistrate, Bijnor, as clearly averred by him in Para-4 of the affidavit. The statement from the side of petitioner cannot be accepted without any support that actually he had given the representation to the Jail authority on 31-1-2002. It appears that he gave it to the Jail authority on 13-2-2002 on which date itself, it had been forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bijnor who sent it to the S. P. , Bijnor for his comments on the same day. The District Magistrate, Bijnor has explained that 14-2-2002 was general election day in Bijnor and on that days as well as on 15-2-2002 the entire District Administration was busy in conducting the election. On 16-2-2002 the comments were prepared by sponsoring authorities. 17-2-2002 was holiday on account of Sunday. On 18-2-2002 the comments of the sponsoring authorities were received in the office of District Magistrate, Bijnor and after preparing his comments the District Magistrate, Bijnor sent the same with the representation of the detenu to the State Government through special messenger on 20-2-2002 and the State Government rejected the same on 27-2- 2002. It has further been explained through affidavit of Sri R. S. Agarwal filed on behalf of the State of U. P. that on receiving the representation along with comments of District Magistrate, Bijnor on 20-2-2002, note was prepared on 21-2-2002 which was examined by the Deputy Secretary, Special Secretary and Secretary on 22-2-2002. The Secretary submitted it to the higher authorities and after due consideration the representation was rejected by the State Government on 25-2-2002. The result was communicated to the petitioner through District Authorities by a radiogram on 27-2-2002. Thus, it is apparent that there was no unexplained or unreasonable delay in deciding the representation by the State Government. It was promptly processed and the decision was taken without any loss of time.
(3.) WE find that there was no delay in the decision of representation at the level of Central Government either. It is noted from the affidavit of Virender Kumar Gupta filed on behalf of the Union of India that the representation of the petitioner was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 20-2-2002 and on the concerned desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 21-2-2002. Final decision to reject the same was taken by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs within three days of its effectively becoming available for consideration. The petitioner was informed of the decision of the Central Government through quickest mode of communication i. e. by crash wireless message on 25-2-2002. In this view of the matter, there has not been any indifference or lapse on the part of Union of India also in considering and deciding the representation of the petitioner expeditiously. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition and to interfere with the detention order passed against the petitioner.;