R. K. Shukla,J. - (1.) BY means of this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, Mohd. Yameen has challenged the order of his detention dated 5-11-1985 (Annexure I to the writ petition), passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate, Moradabad.
(2.) THE aforesaid order of detention was served on the petitioner on the same day, i.e. 5-11-1985 and he was taken into custody. THE grounds of detention (Annexure II to the petition) along with ten enclosures were handed over to the petitioner in jail on 7-11-1985. THE grounds of detention of the petitioner as given in Annexure II are in short as under : 1. On 22-9-1985 when after the death of Sayeedul Rahman accused, situation in Moradabad city was tense, petitioner collected undesirable elements at his house on 26-9-1985 and told them that spreading of rumour regarding cutting of the beard of Sayeedul Rahman has brought desired result according to his plan and further plan has to be made for spreading religious provocation amongst Muslims. Facts relating to this has been noted down in the confidential diary of L.I.U. at Serial No. 548 dated 27-9-1985. 2. On 29-9-1985 the petitioner along with other friends forced Aslam Barber to make false statement that Sri Narendra Pal, S. O. Galshahid gave a scissor to cut the beard of Sayeedul Rahman. For that the petitioner promised to pay sufficient money to Aslam Barber. This fact is also mentioned in the L.I.U. confidential diary at Serial No. 555 dated 30-9-1985. 3. On 30-9-1985 the petitioner' collected certain undesirable persons and spread such rumours so that there might be riot between Hindus and Muslims as it happened in 1980. THE petitioner tried his best to Create hatred in the minds of Muslims against Hindus and police, details of which are mentioned in the L.I.U. confidential diary at serial No. 557 dated 30-9-1985. Due to aforesaid rumours spread by the petitioner, tension and terror prevailed amongst Hindus and Muslims in Moradabad. If the District Administration had not acted tactfully then the petitioner would have succeeded in spreading riot in Moradabad city. 4. When the petitioner did not succeed in his aforesaid plan then in anguish on 7-10-1985 with the conspiracy of Dr. Hamid Husain, son of Ahmad Hasan Khan, resident of Kathdarwaza, police station Galashahid, district Moradabad he convened a meeting at his house in which a decision was taken that trouble should be created by provocating Muslims against the police. At the same time he along with his associates planned to provoke Kunjada Biradari. This activity of the petitioner spread in the city and atmosphere of the city was spoiled. THE details of this meeting held at the residence of the petitioner are mentioned in L.I.U. confidential diary at serial No. 578 dated 8-10-1985. 5. On 14-10-1985 at the crossing of Tabakian the petitioner collected 10-15 Muslim associates, and started giving lecture loudly and said that Muslims should be united, their reliigion was in danger ; innocent Sayeedul Rahman had been killed by Hindus with the connivance of police ; that they had to take revenge of blood against blood, police was favouring Hindus ; in 1980 police and Hindus unitedly killed Muslims ; police of Galshahid would do nothing in the case of murder of Sayeedul Rahman. THE petitioner went towards Sambhali Gate saying that Qafirs should be finished. Crossing of Tabakian is a busy and sensitive place. Hearing such utterances of the petitioner people assembled in large number. When the petitioner left the place, people started fleeing away and shops were closed. Atmosphere was full of fear, terror and tension and public life was disturbed. On receiving the information of such situation, the S. O. reached with police force at that place, found the information to be true, controlled the situation, got the shops opened ; full assurance of their protection was given and special arrangement of police was made. Report of this incident is noted down in report No. 32 at 19.45 Due to such speeches of the petitioner, disturbance in the market, atmosphere of terror and tension prevailed in thai; area, which created adverse effect on maintenance of public order, Hindu-Muslim riot was apprehended at any time in the city of Moradabad due to provocative speeches of the petitioner. On the aforesaid grounds the detaining authority was fully satisfied that the petitioner could do anything in any manner, which was contrary to maintenance of social order. Therefore, with the object of maintaining social and public order, the Detaining Authority, Moradabad passed the detention order dated 5-11-1985, against the petitioner. The State Government of U. P. approved the aforesaid detention order on 16-11-85 and reported the fact to the Central Government on the same day as required by Section 3 (5) of the Act. On 21-11-85 the matter was referred to the Advisory Board, which heard the petitioner on 11-12-85 and submitted its report to the U. P. Government,, whereupon the detention order dated 5-11-85 was confirmed on 23-12-85 by the State Government. The petitioner made his first representation on 25-11-85 under Section 8 of the Act through the Superintendent of Jail, which was forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate on 24-11-85. The State Government rejected the said representation on 6-12-85 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 10-12-85.
(3.) THEREAFTER according to the allegations made in the petition another representation dated 9-1-86 under Section 14 of the Act was sent by Sri D. S. Misra, Advocate, High Court, Allahabad on the direction and advice of the petitioner to the Central Government and the State Government through the President of India and the Governor of U. P. respectively by registered posts. It is also alleged that the said representation was received by the Governor of U. P. on 11-1-86 ; but the disposal and decision of that representation has not been communicated to the petitioner. But the receipt of this representation dated 9-1-86 is not admitted by the State of U. P. It is further alleged in paragraph 3 of the supplementary re-joinder affidavit filed by Mohd. Saleem son of Mohd. Yamin on behalf of the petitioner that after receiving the copy of the representation dated 9-1-86 from the Central Government, the same has not been disposed of expeditiously. However, the said representation was received in the office of the President of India on 13-1-86 and sent to Home Ministry, which was received on 22-1-86, where it was disposed of on 26-2-86 after obtaining comments from the U. P. Government. It is further alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the petition that copies of daily report No. 542 dated 25-9-85 and daily report No. 555 mentioned in reports Nos.548 and 557 respectively were not supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention which contravene the provisions of Sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act, and as such his detention is illegal. Hence the present writ petition has been filed on 4-2-86. All the aforesaid allegations have been denied on behalf of the State Government, Distt.Magistrate as well as the Central Government through affidavits.;