- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. The petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 16-3-2005, passed by respondent No. 1, District Magistrate, Sonebhadra, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and his continued detention thereunder.
(2.) THE grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. THE foundation was an incident dated 28th December, 2004 of 10. 30 a. m. which took place near the office of P. W. D. , Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra. One Assistant Engineer Sukkhoo Chaudhary was short dead. THE report of this incident was lodged the same day at 11. 05 a. m. by one Bageshwari who was Chaukidar in PWD office near which the incident had taken place. None was named as culprit in the F. I. R. However, during the course of investigation, the petitioner came to figure as one of the culprits who had hatched a criminal conspiracy for the said murder. THE petitioner wanted to have an upper edge in grabbing contracts but the said Assistant Engineer was not succumbing to his pressure, lending helping hand to advance his evil design. It was said to be the reason of his murder. THE said incident was committed in brilliant daylight which created an atmosphere of panic and terror in the entire area and public order was completely disturbed. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. We have heard Shri Dileep Kumar assisted by Shri Rajiv Gupta for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi learned A. G. A. and the Counsel for Union of India. In this case, one of the contentions from the side of the petitioner was that he had made a representation on 10th April, 2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition ). Learned A. G. A. , on the other hand, countered that no such representation had been received by the Deputy Jailor.
(3.) BY order dated 29-8-2005, another Bench of this Court permitted the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the State Government and Central Government within two weeks. The Counsel for the petitioner was permitted to file a copy of the representation before the Court by way of supplementary affidavit. In consequence of such order, the petitioner made representation dated 3-9-2005 and filed copy of the same with supplementary affidavit as Annexure SA-1. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that there had been unexplained and inordinate delay in the decision of his representation dated 3-9-2005 by the Central Government. We have examined this aspect of the matter. It is noted from the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Shri Ram Surat Yadav, Additional District Magistrate, Sonebhadra on behalf of the detaining authority that the petitioner submitted his representation through jail authorities on 3-9-2005, 4-9-2005 was Sunday and after collecting necessary information, parawise comments were prepared and the representation was sent to the State Government through special massenger. As per the supplementary affidavit sworn by Sri Babu Lal, Under Secretary, Government of U. P. , Lucknow, the representation dated 3-9-2005 submitted on behalf of the petitioner sent by the District Magistrate, Sonebhadra on 6-9-2005 with comments was received on 7-9-2005 and the same day was forwarded to the Special Secretary, Home (Confidential) who also examined it on the same day. Further, it was sent to the Secretary, Home (Confidential) who examined it on 9-9-2005 and then it was sent to the higher authorities for consideration. The representation was ultimately rejected by the State Government on 13-9-2005. Obviously, so far as the State Government was concerned, there was no delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner which came to be decided within a week from the date of receipt of the representation by it (State Government ).;