- (1.) THE petitioner seeks u writ of habeas corpus for quashing his detention order dated 21-12-1996 con tained in Annexure No. 1 passed by the District Magistrate, Lucknow, under Sec-lion 3 (2) or the National Security Act.
(2.) THE gist of the matter is that since 9-11-1995 the petitioner alongwith few others including Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav was lodged in Jail as under-trial in connection with crime ease No. 835 of 1995 police Station Hazratganj, Lucknow, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120-B, I. P. C. In that case he had applied for bail which, how ever, was declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow vide his order dated 7-8-1996. It was contended that even though the petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with the aforesaid case, yet on 21 -12-96, he was surprised by the respon dents with the service of the impugned detention order which, according to him, was completely punitive, arbitrary and without sufficient cause. It was urged that the detention order was an unnecessary curb on his fundamental right inasmuch as it was passed simply to create hurdle in his release on bail if at all, he ever tried for it. In the same sequence, it was submitted that at an earlier stage the respondents had ordered for the detention of his co-ac cused Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav also under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, but in the case of the former two, the detention or ders had to be revoked in the light of the recommendations of the Advisory Board under Section 12 (2) of the Act, ibid, whereas the detention of Angad Yadav was quashed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12720 of 1996 (Allahabad) decided on 6-5-1996. Amongst others, the petitioner also took the plea that the District Magistrate passed the impugned order in a mechanical fashion without application of mind. Certain other pleas regarding in ordinate delay in disposing of his repre sentation both at the level of the State Government as well as Central Govern ment were also raised. On behalf of the State Govern ment a counter-affidavit was filed by one of its Deputy Secretary P. S. Agarwal whereas the District Magistrate filed, his personal affidavit. The burden thereof was common to the extent that there was no delay in handling and disposing of the petitioner's representation; that deten tion order was passed on an over all view of his antecedents and the likely impact of his release on the public order. The petitioner was stated to be a man's of criminal propensities; his release was like ly to create an environment of terror and generate terrorist activities disturbing the public peace. However, there was no categorical or specific denial for the aver ments that three of his co-accused in the aforesaid murder case were also served with the detention order on the same facts and that their detentions were either revoked by the Government on the recom mendation of the Advisory Board or quashed by the High Court on the judicial side. The Central Government has also filed counter-affidavit through one Ishwar Singh, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi.
(3.) ON a careful scrutiny of the entire available material and hearing the parties we are inclined to quash the detention one, two short grounds; the first and fore most being similarity to the case of his co- accused Chandra Pal Yadav, Suraj Pal Yadav and Angad Yadav. At the risk of repetition it may be mentioned that all these three persons, of course, at different stages were also detained under Section 3 (2) of the Act, ibid, on the same very ground and their detentions were found unsustainable. There is nothing to indi cate any distinguishing feature to justify the petitioner's detention; interesting aspect of the matter being that the last release of the aforesaid detenus was on 6-5-1996 i. e. , a good seven and a half months prior to the service of the im pugned detention order on the petitioner. If the petitioner were to be a person of dangerous propensities who could be a hazard to the public peace and security, there might possibly be a good ground to warrant his detention, but the casual at titude of the authorities towards the issue exposes them in poor light, particularly when he had started making attempts for his release on bail. His efforts to come out of Jail by seeking bail was frustrated by the judicial order dated7-8-1996 and this inci dent itself should have alterted the State authorities to take precautionary measures for the detention of the petitioner, if at all, they felt that it was warranted under the circumstances but their inaction for another four and a half month in this regard goes unexplained. It may not be out of context to mention here that in the affidavit, Central Government have conceded that they had received the petitioner's representation through Jail as well as the State authorities but surprisingly enough they did not bother to apprise the petitioner about the result thereof. On the other hand in para 5 of their affidavit they came out with a novel plea that they did not deem it necessary to inform the petitioner or anybody about the outcome of the said representation. The Court is of the con sidered opinion that every authority to whom a detenu has a right of repre sentation and is empowered to affirm, revoke or rescind it, is statutorily obliged to consider it on merit expeditiously on addressing itself in the right earnestness and on taking a decision thereon apprise the detenu of its outcome.;