- (1.) V. M. Sahai and S. P. Mehrotra, JJ. We have heard Sri Awadh Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri J. K. Sisodia, learned A. G. A. appearing for re spondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Awad hesh Rai, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4.
(2.) THE petitioner has been detained under the National Security Act vide order dated 1. 9. 2007 passed by the District Mag istrate, Ghaziabad. THE detenu made a rep resentation dated 13. 9. 2007 to the State Government, which was handed over to the jail authorities on 14. 9. 2007. THE jail authorities sent the representation to the office of District Magistrate on 15. 9. 2007. On the same day, the District Magistrate called for comments from the Senior Super intendent of Police, Ghaziabad and the re port of Senior Superintendent of Police was received by the District Magistrate on 1. 10. 2007. THEreafter, the District Magis trate transmitted the representation to the Central Government, the State Government and the Advisory Board on 2. 10. 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that there is no explanation of 15 days delay i. e. from 16. 9. 2007 to 30. 9. 2007, as to why the report was sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police after 15 days. One could understand that the report could be sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police within a day or two, but he could not sit over the matter for 15 days and send his report to the District Magistrate after 15 days. Further, from the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate, it is clear that there is no explanation given in the counter-affidavit for the delay from 16. 9. 2007 to 30. 9. 2007. The Apex Court in Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu and another 1999 (38) ACC 312 (SC) has held that un-explained delay of five days was fatal and the detention order would be bad in law and contrary to the constitutional obligation on the Central Government to consider and decide the representation of the detenue without any delay. In Harish Pahwa v. State of U. P. 1982 (19) ACC 28 (Sum.) (SC) = AIR 1981 SC 1126, the Supreme Court has taken the similar view.
(3.) SIMILAR view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Harish Kumar2007 (58) ACC 294 (SC) = 2007 (52) AIC 29 = AIR 2007 SC 1430 (paras 7,11 and 12)relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, furtfier detention of the petitioner under the Na tional Security Act is held to be illegal.;