- (1.) RAI Sahab Singh has preferred this Habeas Corpus writ petition challenging his continued detention in jail on the strength of the detention order dated 22nd December 1997 of the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar passed under Sections 3 (2) and 3 (3) of the Na tional Security Act, 1980.
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Ad vocate and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government and have perused the material placed on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there has been undue and unexplained delay in disposal of petitioner's representation by the Central Government inasmuch as the petitioner had preferred his representation on 8-1-1998 and the representation was disposed of by the Central Government as late as on 6-5-1998. In this manner it took nearly four months for the Central Government to dispose of the representation. Counter-affidavits on behalf of Union of India as well as State Government have been filed. The District Magistrate of Ambedkar Nagar has also filed his counter-affidavit.
(3.) IT emerges from para 25 of the counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate that the representation of the petitioner dated 8-1-1998 was handed over to the Superintendent, District Jail on 10-1-1998. On 12- 1-1998 the District Magistrate called for para-wise comments on the representation from the Superin tendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar. Comments of the Superintendent of Police were received by the District Magistrate on 22-1-1998 and thereafter on 31-1-1998 the District Magistrate forwarded the rep resentation to the Government of India, Home Ministry (Internal Security), North Block, New Delhi. According to the af fidavit filed on behalf of Union of India, this representation was received by the Central Government on 10-2-1998. No ex planation is forthcoming from the State why it took 10 days for the Superintendent of Police to send his comments. Similarly, the delay between 12-1-1998 to 22-1-1998 has remained unexplained. IT appears that the representation was dealt with in a most casual manner and was not given immedi ate attention. We are at a loss to under stand why, if the comments of the Superin tendent of Police were received by the District Magistrateon 22-1-1998, the rep resentation still remained lying with the District Magistrate till 31-1-1998. IT is also not known what happened, therefor, be tween 31-1-1998 and 10-2-1998. The dates mentioned above make it clear that there has been lot of unexplained delay at the level of the District Magistrate in trans mitting the representation to the Central Government. Adverting to the manner in which the representation was disposed of by the Central Government, a reference may be made to the counter-affidavit of Sri Bina Prasad, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. In paras 6 and 7 of the counter-af fidavit of Sri Bina Prasad it is stated that the representation was received by the Central Government on 10-2-1998 and certain vital informations were sent for from the State Government. This informa tion was available on 13-2-1998. There after there was a gap of another 10 days and the counter-affidavit says that on receiv ing said information on 13- 2-1998 the case of the detenu was put up before the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 23-2-1998. The representation was con sidered by the Under Secretary who gave his comments and put up the same before the Joint Secretary and the Joint Secretary considered the same and put the repre sentation with his comments before the Minister of State for Home Affairs on 24-2- 1998. From 24-2-1998 this representation remained pending without any thing being done till 24-3- 1998. The explanation is that the P. S. to Minister of State for Home Affairs informed that the Minister is not likely to return before the formation of the new Government and hence the file remained pending. The af fidavit does not explain the delay. There is no explanation for the period intervening 13-2-1998 to 23-2-1998. Even after the new Home Minister had assumed office, the file was again put before the Deputy secretary on 24-3-1998 and in para 7 it is mentioned, "who considered the same and put up the case to Deputy Secretary on 24-3-1998, who carefully considered the same and with his comments put up the case to Joint Secretary on 8-4-1998. " There is absolutely no explanation for the delay of 15 days between 24-3-1998 to 8-4-1998. The counter-affidavit further mentions that the Joint Secretary put up the case before the Home Minister on 13-4-1998 and the Home Minister rejected the repre sentation on 6-5-1998. Thus, the file again remained pending for three weeks be tween 13-4-1998 to 6-5-1998 and there is no explanation for the intervening period.;