VISHNU SAHAI, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu Kaleem has impugned the order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the third opposite party Mr. Alok Kumar, District Magistrate, Faizabad detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-7-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 31-7-2002 itself and their true copies have been filed as Annexures 1 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the third opposite party to issue impugned detention order against him are contained in Annexure-3 (grounds of detention). A perusal of Annexure-3 would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C. R., namely, C.R. No. 320 of 2002, under Sections 147, 323, 342, 452, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster Act of police station Cantt. District Faizabad, registered on the basis of a complaint dated 12-6-2002 lodged by Smt. Vimlesh Pal at the said police station. The details pertaining to the said C.R., as contained in the grounds of detention, are as under; On 12-6-2002 at about 10.30 p.m. the detenu along with his associates Raju, Ranu and Shanker to fulfil their lust entered inside house No. 1308, Begumganj Garhiya within the limits of police station Cantt. District Faizabad, wherein Smt. Vimlesh Pal, a widow, was residing along with her children. Sensing the evil designs of the detenu and his associates, Smt. Vimlesh Pal tried to make a telephonic call. Thereupon detenu and his associates threatened her and did not let her make it. Thereafter the detenu and his associates, in order to satisfy their lust took her away to a secluded corner of the house. Seeing this, neighbours tried to save her. Thereupon the detenu and his associates showed a bomb and threatened to kill them. As a result of the same, they hid inside their houses. The said news spread like lightening in the adjoining localities and a fear psychosis was created in the minds of those residing there. Thereafter the detenu and his associates raped Smt. Vimlesh Pal. On the basis of said facts, the detaining authority was implicitly satisfied that in order to prevent the detenu from committing such acts in future, it was imperative to detain him under the National Security Act.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Although in this writ petition Mr. Avinash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu has raised a number of grounds, but he pressed before us only three grounds, namely :- (i) There was inordinate delay on the part of opposite party No. 1 (Union of India) in disposing of petitioner-detenu's representation dated 18th August 2002; (ii) Although the petitioner-detenu made a representation to the opposite party No. 1 (the detaining authority) there was no material for the detaining authority to record his subjective satisfaction to detain the petitioner-detenu vide the impugned order; (iii) Even if prejudicial act attributed to the petitioner-detenu in the grounds of detention is accepted to be correct, it only discloses breach of law and order and not public order.;