- (1.) R. C. Deepak, J. The petitioner Ziyaul Hasan son of Sri Shafiurrahman resident of Mohalla Shahi Katra, Police Station Kotwali Mau, District Mau is detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 vide detention order dated 3-12-2005 passed by the Sri Mukesh Meshram, District Magistrate, Mau. By way of this habeas corpus writ petition he has challenged the validity of the detention order and has made a prayer to quash the same.
(2.) THE grounds of detention, as disclosed in Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, are that on 14-8-2005 at 8. 00 a. m. at Mohalla Allauddin, Police Station Kotwali, District Mau the petitioner Ziyaul Hasan alongwith his sons assembled hundred Muslim youths and shouted the slogan "allah Ho Akbar", delivered inflammatory speeches and thereby excited and incited the people to loot and put up on fire to the houses and shops, as a consequence the articles of Mohan Shah and Nand Lal Sahani were looted and the shops were set at fire including the house of Mehraj Agarwal. Consequently, the public order was badly effected and communal riots prevailed; that the situation became out of control. THE situation was controlled only when the P. A. C. , R. A. F. and Police Forces from neighbouring Districts reached there. A case as case crime No. 1583-S of 2005 under Sections 147, 435, 436, 153, 427, IPC was registered against them. We have heard Sri D. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the State of U. P. and perused the records. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions that the detaining authority did not apply its mind in passing the detention order dated 3-12-2005, as the grounds of detention (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), as disclosed, are the verbatim of the proposal of the S. H. O. dated 26- 11-2005 (Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition) and in support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Billa v. Superintendent Jail, Basti, 2001 (2) JIC 48 (All) : 2001 (42) A. C. C. 995, Tanu v. Superintendent Jail, Ballia, 2000 (1) JIC 274 (All) : 2000 (40) A. C. C. 724, Rajesh Vasudeo Advani v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , S. C. C. (Crl.) 2006 page 61; that the copy of the bail application in case crime No. l583-S of 2005 under Sections 147, 435,436, 153,427 IPC of the petitioner was not supplied to him, rather the copy of the bail application of the co-accused Surjeet Singh was provided to him and he has also relied the cases of Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 550, Salim Loni v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 431, Munna Twin v. District Magistrate, AIR 1982 SC 878, Gurdeep v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 362; that there is delay in sending the representation of the petitioner to the Union of India. The representation was made on 10-12-2005. It was sent to the Union of India on 22-12-2005 and received therein on 30- 12-2005. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Icchu Dev Churaia v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 783, Vijay Narain v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC. . . . . . , Ravindra Kumar Ghoshal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1408. On the basis of these facts and observations made in the cases referred, he has argued that the detention order is bad in law.
(3.) ON the other hand Sri A. K, Tripathi, learned A. G. A. has vehemently argued that the basis of the detention order dated 3-12-2005 is not the bail application of the petitioner, so the detaining authority did not consider it relevant to supply the copy thereof; that non-supply of the copy of the bail application did not cause prejudice to the petitioner, as he was aware of the grounds taken therein. It was subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to pass the said detention order in order to maintain the public order and in support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Abdul Sattar Abrahim Manik v. Union of India and Ors. , J. T. 1991 (4) SC 103, J. T. 2002 (6) SC 189, Sunila Jain v. Union of India, J. T. 2006 (2) SC 612; AIR 1999 SC 640, N. Mira Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. , AIR 1989 SC 2227. In regard to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the grounds of detention are the verbatim of the proposal of the S. H. O. The learned State Counsel argued that the facts are the same which cannot be changed. So it cannot be said to be the verbatim.;