- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The abovementioned three habeas corpus writ peti tions have been filed challenging the Illegal detention of the pet under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' praying for quashing the detention orders and direction for setting the petitioners at liberty forthwith and also for awarding special compen sation for illegal detention of the petitioners. The writ petitions of Lalji and Ram Samujh were got reported by the Stamp Reporter and presented before the Joint Registrar on 28-2-1996. These two writ petitions wore taken up by the Division Bench on 29-2-1996. The Division Bench directed these petitions to be listed on 11-3-1996. It was observed by the Bench 1 learned A. G. A. shall justify the order vis-a-vis on that date by a count affidavit to be filed by the District Magistrate as also the State Government, who has approved the order of detention. It was made clear that on next date of admission itself if the Government Advocate is not in a potion to defend the order, the position shall be finally disposed c stage of admission itself.
(2.) THE position of Sant Lal Kewat was got reported on 29-2-1996 and presented before the Additional Registrar the same day. THE petition was taken up by the Bench on 1-3-1996. It was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 7913 of 1991-Lalji v. Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur and 7914 of 1996-Ram Samujh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur on 11-3-1996. Since the three petition raised common questions of law and facts, they were clubbed together. Counter-affidavit of Sri Rahul Bnatnagar, District Magistrate, Gorakhpur was filed in each of the petitioners, On 22-4-1996 two weeks time was allowed for filing rejoinder-affidavit and it was directed that the petition be listed thereafter for hearing. counter affidavit of Sri Narendra Bahadur Singh, U. D. C. Confidential Section 5, U. P. Civil Secretariate, Lucknow and counter-affidavit or Sri Suresh Nath, Deputy Jailor of District Jail, Gorakhpur have also been filed but no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed to these counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit of Sri Rahul Bhatnagar, District Magis trate, Gorakhpur it was stated that the detention order was revoked by the State Government on 28-2-1996 and after receiving the information the petitioners were informed through the jail authorities. It was stated that from the aforesaid fact it would be clear that when the time was allowed for filing counter-affidavit the detention order had already been revoked and on this ground the petition for habeas corpus is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as infructutous. There is no rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate.
(3.) SRI A. K. Tripathi, A. G. A. raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ of habeas corpus and submitted that the detention order under the Act had been revoked on 28-2-1996, the date on which the first two writ petitions were filed before the Joint Registrar. Ho relied on the case reported In AIR 1974 SC 2287-Mohit Chandra Sah v. District Magistrate 24, Pargana, Calcutta. He pointed and that the Apex Court said in the said petition that the petitioner since had been released and the questions raised on his behalf have become academic, the petition also had become infructuous that in the said situation no useful purpose would be served by answering the points which had become academic and the writ petition was dismissed having become infructuous. Sri Daya Shanker Miwa, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three petitions, vehemently opposed the preliminary objection and sub mitted that the detention order itself was patently illegal, unwarranted and passed mala fide without application of mind in a mechanical fashion. He argued that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have failed to consider and apply their mind in passing the order of detention contravening the provisions, its purport, aims and object contemplated under Sections 3 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act. He further submitted that the detaining authority mechanically and arbitrarily passed the order of detention, which was an abuse of the autho rity vested in respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and which has violated the provisions of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 (3) of the Constitution and Sections 3 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4), 3 (5), 8, 10, 12 and 14 of the Act. He also argued that the orders impugned resulted in illegal detention of the petitioners violating the funda mental rights of the petitioner of liberty. He further submitted that it ii not very relevant that on the date of hearing of the writ petitions if the detention orders were cancelled, that would not render the writ petitioner infructuous and the petitioners shall be entitled to payment of compensation and damages for the illegal detention of the petitioners under the impugned order. He submitted that the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 2278 (supra) relied on by the learned A. G. S. is not applicable to the fact and circumstances of the present case. He submitted a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which special compensation was awarded for illegal detention. We shall refer to the said decisions at a later stage.;