- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8-11- 2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (for short 'the Act' ).
(2.) COUNTER and Rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and they are on record. We have heard Sri Daya Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri J. Lal, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India-respondent No. 4. It appears from the grounds of detention, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition that when the Senior Sub-Inspector Sri Ved Prakash alongwith other police personnel reached near Medical Chauraha at about 8. 15 p. m. on 10th October, 2002, they found four persons carrying polythene packet in their hands in a suspicious manner on west south corner of the road. On seeing the police personnel, all these four persons including the petitioner started moving towards Civil Lines. However, the police party ultimately arrested them near the house of the Principal of the Government Inter College and on search forged stamp papers were recovered from their possession. They were accordingly brought to the Police Station and taken into custody and an FIR was lodged which was registered as Case Crime No. 253 of 2002 under Sections 255, 258, 259 and 260 IPC. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad vide his letter dated 6-11-2002 sent proposal for the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of National Security Act whereupon the District Magistrate, Allahabad passed the impugned order detaining the petitioner which was also approved by the State Government on 13- 11-2002 as required under sub-section 4 (3) of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was in fact arrested from his residence on 9th October, 2002 at 12. 00 in the night and a telegram to this effect was also sent by the mother of the detenu on 10-10-2002 at 12. 00 noon to the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad but the same was not placed nor considered by the District Magistrate (detaining authority) while passing the impugned order of detention. It is also argued that admittedly his representation against the order of the detention was placed at the desk of the Home Ministry on 26-11-2002 but no explanation has been given for the period from 26-11-2002 to 3- 12-2002 which vitiates the further detention of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 - Union of India opposed the writ petition and pointed out that the representation of the petitioner has been disposed of with all promptness and the delay has duly been explained.;