- (1.) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by Babboo Singh alias Ranvir Singh questioning the validity of the order passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, dated 26-12-1992. Both the detention order and grounds of detention were served on the same day on the petitioner in the District Jail at Kanpur where he was already kept under arrest in connection with some criminal cases. Relevant dates, as-stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and not disputed by the learned Counsel for the State, are given hereinafter.
(2.) On 26-12-1992 a report under Section 3(4) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sent to the State Government. On 4-1-1993 the State Government approved the order of detention. On 5-1-1993 the State Government sent its report to the Central Government under Section 3(5) of the Act. ft is averred in the petition that on 5-1-1993 an identical representation through the Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur Dehat was sent to the State Government and the Central Government. However, the Deputy Jailor, District Jail, Kanpur Nagar, in his counter affidavit, had admitted to have received the representation of the petitioner 07-1-1993. It will be important to note that on 8-1-1993 the District Magistrate forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the State Government. without comments. It is also equally important to note that on 18-1-1993 the District Magistrate sent his comments in respect of the representation made by the petitioner to the State Government. At this stage, it will be relevant to point out that the representation was forwarded earlier to the State Government without any comments on 8-1-93 and it was only on 18-1-1993 the District Magistrate sent his comments on the representation of the petitioner to the State Government. Thus, it appears that the District Magistrate took ten days time in sending his comments to the State Government. On 20-1-1993 comments were placed before the Advisory Board and the representation along with the comments of the District Magistrate was forwarded' to the Central Government. At this stage, it is pointed out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that 10/11 days delay, from the above facts, is there is sending the comments by the District Magistrate to the State Government and 13 days delay in sending the representation to the Central Government was made. It is also pointed out that on 21-1-1993 notes were put up and ultimately on 22-1-1993 the State Government rejected the representation of the petitioner, which was received by the jailor on 7-1-1993. On 27-1-1993 rejection order was communicated to the petitioner through the district authorities. It is also pointed out that on 28-1-1993 hearing before the Advisory Board took place and the petitioner was present before the Advisory Board. On 9-2-1993 the District Magistrate sent its comments to the State Government and thereafter on 17-2-1993 the State Government passed the order of confirmation of the detention order. It is also pointed out that on 20-1-1993 the representation was sent to the Central Government by the State Government, which was received by. the Central Government on 25-1-1993. On 28-1-1993 the representation of the petitioner was considered in the Home Department. On 1-2-1993 the said representation was placed before the Home Minister of the Central Government and on 3-2-1993 he desired the report of the Advisory Board by radiogram. Thereafter the report was sent, as desired, to the Central Government and finally on 22-2-1993 the Central Government received the report. Thereafter on 26-2-1993 the Central Government rejected the representation.
(3.) In the present case, the main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the comments were sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate, i.e., detaining authority, almost after ten days from the date of detention order and this delay of ten days has not been explained either by the District Magistrate or by the State Government in their counter affidavits.;