M.Wahajuddin, J. - (1.) Petitioner Shyam Narain by this Habeas Corpus petition has challenged his detention, seeking his release. It is prayed that the order of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, as well as the order dated 24-11-1981 of the State Government may be set aside. The grounds taken are as enumerated below: (1) Ram Narain Dube and Vindhya Chal Dube are on inimical terms and the petitioner worked with the latter. Sri K. N. Tripathi, earlier posted as Superintendent of police Azamgarh, and later transferred to as Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, is a relation of Ram Narain Dube and has a bias against the petitioner. (2) The State Government did not extend the period for exercise of powers by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter mentioned as Act). Hence, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, had no authority to detain the petitioner under the Act. (3) The two incidents, which were cited in the grounds of detention, both were of District Azamgarh; hence the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, could not pass any order of detention and his order is without jurisdiction. (4) The incidents concerned law and order and not public order. (5) The State Government did not approve the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, within 15 days and the report of its approval was not communicated to the Central Government within the scheduled period. (6) The order of detention has been passed on irrelevant consideration and on non-existent facts and in particular on the basis of mala fide of Superintendent of Police and the incidents complained of had no immediate proximity. The District Magistrate did not pass a formal detention order. (7) The State Government did not place the representation of the petitioner and the report of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, before the Advisory Board till 27-10-1981 (this plea was raised in supplementary affidavit).
(2.) While it was also pleaded initially in the petition and the affidavit in support of it, that the Advisory Board did not provide any legal assistance to the petitioner, nor afforded any opportunity to have himself represented by a Counsel, this ground was not pressed during the arguments.
(3.) It would appear from the counter-affidavits filed in this case that the detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, on 26-8-1981 and the grounds upon which it was based were also laid down on that very date, but they could not be executed and served earlier upon the petitioner, as the petitioner was on bail, and they were served on 5-10-1981, when the petitioner was arrested. The copy of the detention order dated 26-8-1981 of the District Magistrate, Ghazipur, with the grounds of detention and other material was forwarded by the District Magistrate to the State Government and the State Government received it on 28-8-1981 approving the same by its order dated 5-9-1981. The State Government informed the Central Government also of this detention on 10-9-1981, forwarding the relevant papers. The representation dated 10-10-1981 with the comments of the District Magistrate dated 13-10-1981 was received by the State Government on 15-10-1981. The representation and other relevant materials were sent to the Advisory Board. The State Government itself after considering the representation of the detenu rejected it on 17-10-1981. The Advisory Board after giving a personal hearing to the detenu furnished its opinion dated 16-11-1981, which was received by the State Government on 18-11-81, and the State Government by its order dated 24-11-1981 confirmed the petitioner's detention.;