S.S.KULSHRESTHA, J. - (1.) THIS peti­tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the detention order dated 17.9.2007 of the petitioner un­der section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (which is herein after referred to as the 'Act') passed by the District Magis­trate, Allahabad. Simultaneously, the noti­fication No. 111/1/1/80-C.X.-7 dated 1.7.2007 issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers under section 3(3) of the Act is desired to be quashed as being violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Consti­tution of India. Compensation for the ille­gal detention of the petitioner has also been claimed.
(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that an ugly incident relating to the tearing of the pages of Holy Quran had taken place in Kaladanda Mosque, Allahabad for which some persons snowed their anger on 31.8.2007 at 9.30 p.m. On it, first informa­tion report was lodged at P.S. Kareli, Alla­habad against 15 named, including the petitioner, and a mob of 100-150 unknown persons contending that they resorted to violence. That mob was being led by the petitioner. Such distortion was made by the Police of P.S. Kareli, though the petitioner, being the prominent member of a political party, was trying to pacify the agitating group. Even various newspapers have re­acted against the lodging of the report as a result of political vendetta. For that the of­fice bearers of the rival party are being har­assed. The petitioner brought Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 13669 of 2007 be­fore this Court for quashing the FIR. That writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide the order dated 7.9.2007 for making expeditious disposal of the bail application of the petitioner. It was next contended that the petitioner surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and applied for bail which was rejected on that very day. How­ever, on 17.9.2007 his bail application was pressed before the Incharge Sessions Judge, Allahabad but the learned .D.G.C (Crl.) misrepresented the facts before the Ses­sions Judge that this Court did not accord any such relief in Criminal Misc. Writ Peti­tion No. 13669 of 2007. To the contrary the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. The State Counsel was asked by the learned Sessions Judge to file the certified copy of the order passed by this Court and the application for bail was directed to be listed for hearing on 18.9.2007 before the Addl. Sessions Judge. The S.H.O., Kareli on 12.9.2007 fabricated a version that the con­duct of the petitioner is prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. On such report the Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad recommended the matter for taking action under section 3(2) of the Act against the petitioner. On that premises the impugned order dated 17.9.2007 was passed by the District Magistrate without recording subjective satisfaction. It was a case of spontaneous reaction of certain per­sons against the police inaction in the mat­ter of tearing of pages of Holy Quran in Kaladanda Mosque, Allahabad. There is no allegation that after attacking the police station, the agitators went in some other locality to spread communal. Such action of the District Magistrate is said to be arbi­trary and without any material on record. It is further alleged that the State Govern­ment under section 3(3) of the National Security Ordinance, 1980 (which was sub­sequently replaced by Act No. 65 of 1980) issued first Notification No.111/1/1/80-C.X-6 dated 25.9.1980 in exercise of powers under section 3(3) of the Act. It was for a period of three months. Since then the State Government is extending the period from time to time in a casual and mechanical manner. There is nothing on record to show as to what was the necessity before the State Government for conferring such powers by continuous process of extending earlier notification time and again confer­ring powers to the District Magistrates. Extending the period of notification with­out recording satisfaction in a mechanical manner would virtually make the order of the detention passed by the District Magis­trate under section 3(2) of the Act to be non est. This petition was resisted on be­half of the State with the averments that the State Government issued earlier Notifica­tion No. 111/1/1/80-CX-6 dated 25.9.1980 and thereafter number of notifications were issued and last being Notification No. 111//1/80-C.X.-7 dated 1.7.2007 under section 3(3) of the Act. There is no infirmity in extending the period when such a grave situation is prevailing in the district that the persons are likely to disturb the public order. Petitioner and his associates were highly agitated making an issue on tearing of the pages of Holy Quran on 31.8.2007. They started damaging public properties including police vehicles. In that incident several police personnels also sustained injuries. FIR of this incident was registered at the police station at case crime No. 163 of 2007. They were spreading rumours and exuberating panic so as to disturb the communal harmony. However, administration had deployed additional police force for controlling the situation. There were compelling reasons for making the detention of the petitioner who was likely to be released on bail in case crime No. 163 of 2007.
(3.) WE have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.;