- (1.) .
(2.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing his detention which has been made on the basis of an order dated 5 -3 -1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. Besides other grounds in the petition challenging the validity of the order of detention, only two grounds have been pressed which are sufficient enough for the disposal of this petition. In order to appreciate the two grounds as canvassed it is imperatively expedient to notice few facts. The order of detention was made on 5 -3 -85. The District Magistrate, Azamgarh was subjectively satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. Such a subjective satisfaction was achieved and founded on two incidents of murder and assault as are Contained in the grounds of detention which has been furnished to the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act. Ground no. 1 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on 2 -3 -84 at about 6 p.m. while ground no. 2 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on 30 -6 -84 at about 3.30 p.m. These two grounds of detention relate to incidents of March and June, 1984 while the detention order was made by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh as late as March, 85 The grounds on which the petitioner was detained are quite old and stale. If the detention of the petitioner was necessary so as to prevent him from indulging in such activities or similar one for the purpose of maintaining public order, the District Magistrate ought to have made an order of detention immediately thereafter but the order was passed after a long laps of time on 5 -3 -85. Undue delay was thus made in passing the detention order against the petitioner on the said two grounds It could reasonably be assumed that if the District Magistrate of Azamgarh was genuinely and reasonably satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner so as to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, he ought to have acted with greater promtitude in making the order of detention instead of allowing the petitioner to remain at large for such a long period for indulging in activities as are alleged to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. It is manifest that undue delay in making the order has occurred and the element of promtitude which was absolutely necessary in passing the order so as to detain the petitioner, preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public Order, is sufficient to vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority as was held by the Supreme Court in Sh.Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2352 and Sh.Serazul v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1517.
(3.) FURTHER whenever an unreasonable delay occurs as is reflecting in the instant case in making the order of detention, adequate reasons must be given by the detaining authority explaining such delay. However, instantly the District Magistrate Azamgarh has utterly failed to explain the delay. A perusal of the counter -affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh would evidently reveal that action was taken by him on the basis of the report of one Sri Ram Adhar Misra, Station Officer of Police Station, Raunapar, dated 4 -3 -85 wherein the copies of first information report of the two incidents enumerated in the ground of detention were also enclosed. But nowhere the reason as to how the delay has been occasioned has been explained by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh. It may appear incomprehensivable that for the incidents alleged to have occurred as early as March 1984 and June, 1984 a detention order would be passed as late as in March 1985 that is after a lapse of several months. For this delay no explanation is forthcoming from the side of the respondents. In view of the absence of an explanation much less a cogent or satisfactory one, the order is unsustainable. For the reasons stated above, the petitioner's detention is rendered illegal. We accordingly allow the petition and direct the respondents to set the petitioner at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained in some other case. Petition allowed.;