J.J. Munir, J. - (1.) The petitioner Dr. Ashfaq @ Nehal has been detained by an order dated 21.05.2017 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria on ground that it is necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid order is annexed as Annexure no. 9 to the petition and is hereinafter referred to as the 'Detention Order'. The Detention Order is supported by grounds of detention annexed as Annexure no. 10 to the petition that furnish details of those facts, circumstances and evidence that have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Deoria to form a subjective satisfaction required under the statute. The grounds also undertake and inform the detenue of all his rights to represent against the Detention Order including the authorities to whom he could represent, the time within which he could do so and the provisions of the Act, which entitle the detenue to represent. The grounds of detention in support the Detention Order are also dated 21.05.2017 and have been duly served upon the petitioner along with the report of the sponsoring authority (the police) as also other documents that have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Deoria who is hereinafter referred to as the 'Detaining Authority'.
(2.) The petitioner has laid challenge to his detention by dint of the Detention Order through the instant habeas corpus writ petition that was filed on 19.09.2017. The writ petition came up for admission on 18.09.2017 when the following order was made: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Smt. Rajkumari Devi whereas Smt. Manju Thakur, State Law Officer has appeared for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. They pray for and are allowed three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a weekthereafter. List on 24.10.2017 showing the name of Sri R.B. Pal as counsel for the petitioner. "
(3.) The order dated 18.09.2017 constitutes issue of a rule nisi to each of the respondents to show cause against the petitioner's detention under authority of the Detention Order. There is on record a office report dated 23.10.2017 saying that no return had been filed and on 24.10.2017 the petition was directed to be listed in the next cause list; once again there was a repeat of the direction on 02.11.2017. On 13.11.2017 the earliest of the returns to come was on behalf of the Detaining Authority that the Court was informed of which had been filed in the Registry on 27.10.2017. This counter affidavit was not on record and it was, therefore, directed to be traced and placed on record. However, a return each on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 4 were filed in Court on the same day and were taken on record. A rejoinder was filed in response to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Detaining Authority in Court on 13.11.2017 that was accepted on record. A return was filed on behalf of Union of India in Court on 27.11.2017 and a rejoinder too in response to the return on behalf of the Union of India as well as the State also was filed in Court all of which were accepted on record. Thus, effectively respondents have filed return to which the petitioner has submitted his rejoinder separately except in response to the return filed on behalf of the State/respondent no. 2.;