Giridhar Malaviya, J. - (1.) BY this petition petitioner Ram Veer has challenged the legality of his detention in district jail. Moradabad in pursuance of an order dated 23.2.1995 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act duly approved and subsequently confirmed by the Government. Generally speaking the grounds of detention allege certain activities of the petitioner which, according to the District Magistrate, had disturbed the communal atmosphere of the city thereby disturbing the public order which necessitated passing of the order of detention against the petitioner. However since no argument has been advanced on the correctness, legality or otherwise of the ground, it is not necessary to give a detailed account of the petitioner's activities as mentioned in the ground.
(2.) THE only point which has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner had made a representation both to the State Government as also to the Central Government, but the said representation was not disposed of expeditiously by the Central Government, with result that continued detention of the petitioner has been rendered bad in the eyes of law. This point was raised in paragraph 31 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri T. N. Srivastava on behalf of the State Government as also on paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit filed by Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India to substantiate this point. In paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit of Sri T. N. Srivastava it is mentioned that the representation preferred by the petitioner dated 15.3.1995 was received by the State Government on 28.3.1995 along with the comments of the District Magistrate. Moradabad dated 25.3.1995. The representation preferred by the petitioner was also forwarded to the Central Government by the State Government. The paragraph further mentions that there was no delay in forwarding the same (representation) to the Central Government. However, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government by Sri Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer in paragraph 6, reads as follows :- "6. The allegations made in the para No. 31 of the petition are denied being incorrect. It is stated that an incomplete representation dated 15.3.1995 from the detenu was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 17.5.1995 through the State Government. This representation was immediately processed for consideration and the State Government was requested to send a complete representation through a wireless message dated 18.5.1995 which was followed by a Fax message dated 19.5.1995." It is not disputed that the representation made by the petitioner to the Central Government was thereafter rejected on 27.5.1995.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that alter the petitioner had made a proper representation on 15.3.1995 by whatever reason the State Government did not send the complete representation to the Central Government and for whatever reason even the trunkated representation or incomplete representation was sent to the Government after about two months which was received on 17.5.1995 by the Central Government, the right of the petitioner to get his representation considered expeditiously has been violated and as such continued detention of the petitioner has been rendered illegal. In this connection petitioner's learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Alamelu v. State of Tamilnadu and others reported in JT 1994 (7) SC page 517. In the case of B. Alamelu (supra) the point canvassed before the High Court was that constitutional right of the detenue under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution got infracted inasmuch as the representation made against the detention order through the jail authorities was not forwarded to the Central Government; consequently the continued detention of the detenue had become illegal. The High Court distinguished the case of Jai Prakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahr and others, 1993 (Suppl) 1 SCC 392 and dismissed the writ petition against which the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.;