- (1.) IN these four writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have challenged the order of their detention dated 29th September, 2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act,1980 (for short the Act ).
(2.) SINCE in all these petitions the impugned order of detention is based on similar accusation and pleadings of the parties are also similar and identical to each other, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Counter and rejoinder affidavits of the parties are on record. We have heard Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri. A. K. Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 Union of Indian in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition Nos. 53369 of 2002 & 53371 of 2002 and Sri T. N. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 Union of India in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition Nos. 53365 of 2002 & 53373 of 2002. In the grounds of detention, inter alia, it is alleged that on receipt of secret information of the effect that cow slaughter on a large scale is expected to take place in village Majhuwa Meer, P. S. Walterganj, the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali along with police personnel and the informer decided on the spot and found that one cow was being slaughtered. On seeing the police party, 8 to 9 persons managed to escape but the petitioners along with 14 other persons were caught on the spot. Accordingly, Case Crime No. 240 of 2002 under Sections 147/148/149/353/153-A/429/504/506, IPC and Section 3/5/8 of the U. P. Cow Slaughter Act and Section 3/11 of the Animal Cruelty (Prevention) Act and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered at P. S. Walterganj in the district of Basti. It has also been alleged in the grounds of detention that due to the above incident communal tension was flared up in the locality and the public order was disturbed.
(3.) ALTHOUGH the impugned order of detention has been challenged on several grounds, but Sri I. M. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of submission urged two points only. Firstly, that the representation of the petitioners though sent to the Central Government by the detaining authority along with its comments has not been disposed of and on that ground petitioners detention is vitiated. Secondly, that there is inordinate delay in the disposal of the presentations by the State Government which has not been properly explained. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate, opposed the prayer and submitted that since the representation were not addressed to the Central Government, it has rightly not been considered and disposed of and the delay has sufficiently been explained. We have considered the submissions made on both sides.;