- (1.) Heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Deba Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
(2.) By means of the present Habeas Corpus Petition the petitioner has sought quashing of Notifications dated 2.11.2017 issued by the State Government in purported exercise of its power under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short to be referred as the Act) detaining the petitioner, on the basis that the District Magistrate of all the districts of this State have been conferred powers to pass order of detention under section 3 (2) of the Act in contravention of section 3(3) of the Act. Further, it is prayed that a direction be issued to the State Government to pay compensation for violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution which should at least be Rs.10,00,000/-. It is further prayed that a direction be issued quashing the confirmation order of the State Government dated 21.12.2017 and also order dated 23.1.2018 extending the period of detention from three months to six months.
(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner has been detained by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur under section 3(2) of the Act vide order dated 2.11.2017, the grounds of detention were supplied to him as required under section 8 of the Act along with as many as 17 annexures. The power of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur under section 3(2) of the Act cannot be exercised by him unless he is empowered to do so by the State Government by issuing a notification under section 3(3) of the Act having regard to the circumstances prevailing in a local area at some point of time as mentioned in the aforesaid section. In the State of U.P. all the District Magistrates have been empowered to exercise that power which is being challenged by the petitioner. It is noteworthy that the Government of U.P. promulgated the National Security Ordinance, 1980 on 21.8.1980 whereafter the National Security Act (Act No.65 of 1980) was enforced on 27.12.1980 replacing the ordinance. The first notification of the State Government in purported exercise of its power under section 3(3) of the Ordinance No. 11 of 1980 was promulgated by the State Government Notification 111/01/01/80-C.X-6 dated September 25th, 1980, whereafter the State Government extended the said notification successively from time to time on the expiry of every three months of the earlier notification till date. The said notification was in contravention of the provision of section 3(3) of the Act because that sub-section empowers the State Government to confer the jurisdiction upon the District Magistrate only if, having regard to circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local jurisdiction of the District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so but the State Government instead of looking into entire circumstances prevailing in the area has conferred upon all the District Magistrates of the State of U.P. such a power of detention by extending earlier notification in a mechanical manner which has made it to be non-est. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking relief of declaration that the notification issued from time to time extending the notification dated 25.9.1980 is bad in law in exercise of Power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is further stated that the petitioner was in jail on 2.11.2017 when the detention order was passed being involved in Case Crime No.154 of 2017, Case Crime No.152 of 2017, Case Crime No.156 of 2017, Case Crime No.162 of 2017 and Case Crime No.163 of 2017 which were registered at P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. He was enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.154 of 2012 on 25.8.2017 by the concerned court and in all other four cases he was enlarged on bail by the High Court.;