Rakesh Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition through jail under Section 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus by Manoj Jaiswal, who has been detained by an order of detention dated 11.10.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Barabanki, under sub -section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity 'Act') with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.) THE grounds of detention, as communicated to the detenue by the District Magistrate on the basis of which the detention order was passed, are as follows: The detention order as well as grounds of detention was served upon the petitioner. The District Magistrate sent a report to the State Government about the passing of detention order together with the grounds of the detention and all the particulars bearing on the same. The said report and the particulars were considered by the State Government and it approved of the detention order under sub -section (4) of section 3 of the Act and sent a report to the Central Government under section 3(5) of the Act. The State Government forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board in due course under section 10 of the Act along with detention order together with the grounds of detention. The representation made by the petitioner to the State Government was also placed before the Advisory Board. The Board considered the material placed before it, including the representation of the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in person, sent its report to the State Government under sub -section (1) of section 11 of the Act. According to the Board there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. In pursuance of the opinion expressed by the Advisory Board the State Government, in exercise of its powers under sub -section (1) of section 12 of the Act, confirmed the order for detention of the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner.
(3.) IN response to the rule nisi, Sri Yogeshwar Ram Mishra the District Magistrate, Barabanki, who had passed the impugned order, has filed a counter affidavit to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit. In his counter affidavit, the District Magistrate has explained the circumstances which led to the issuance of the detention order. In the counter affidavit, the allegations made by the detenu have been controverted and it has been unequivocally stated that the Constitution safeguards of Article 22(5) and that of section 8 of the Act, have been strictly complied with.;