AMAR SARAN,D.R.AZAD,J - (1.) HEARD Sri Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned AGA for the State parties, and Sri K.K. Dwivedi for the Union of India. By means of this writ petition the peti­tioner is challenging an order of detention dated 6.8.2008 passed by the District Mag­istrate, Basti, who has been pleased to de­tain him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the NSA).
(2.) THE grounds of detention dated 6.8.2009 were served on the petitioner in District Jail, Basti. The allegations therein were that at 10.15 p.m. on 19.7.2008, when Arjun Dubey, the salesman along with his companion Yogendra Dubey were selling petrol to customers, at the B.P. Chandra Petrol Pump, two young men arrived on a motorcycle, got petrol worth Rs. 200/-filled, and started going away without making any payment. When Yogendra Dubey asked for money, the petitioner fired on Yogendra Dubey, who died in the hospital. They also threatened the salesman for having dared to ask for the money and cried out mat if anyone came forward, he would be done to death. As a result of this heinous offence, the persons who were pre­sent in the nearby houses and shops closed their shops out of fear and ran away and an atmosphere of terror was generated in the area. The petitioner also has other criminal history. At 9 p.m. on 4.12.2004 he had shot at and murdered Udai Singh at the roadways tiraha in Basti district. In this crime, his name had surfaced. At about 10 p.m. on 20.5.2006 he tried to fire on the in­formant Satya Prakash Verma, but his mother Smt. Subhawati Devi intervened and she received a firearm injury and a case under section 307 IPC was registered against the petitioner and others. At about 1 p.m. on 20.2.2004 the petitioner along with his companions armed with country made pistols and knife assaulted Shyamendra Singh and kept firing with their country made pistols in the presence of many persons. By all these activities the maintenance of public order was said to have been disturbed.
(3.) THE petitioner submitted copies of his representation on 14.8.2008 against his detention to the District Magistrate, Basti, and other authorities, which were handed over to the jailer for communication to them. On 18.8.2008 the District Magistrate rejected the representation. On 27.8.2008 the State Government rejected his represen­tation. On 2.9.2008 the Central Government also rejected his representation. After the report of the advisory board, the State Government confirmed the detention order on 1.10.2008. Three submissions have been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner: One, that contradictory positions have been taken by the jailer and the Superintendent of District Jail, Basti, inasmuch as according to the counter affidavit filed by the jailer the representation was rejected on 28.8.2008, and communicated to the jail on 28.8.2008, whereas according to the State Government the representation was rejected on 27.8.2008 and communicated to the district authorities on 28.8.2008. Learned AGA rightly pointed out in this connection that there seems to be some con­fusion and misinterpretation about the facts by the jailer who has considered the date of communication of the representation viz. 28.8.2008 to be the date of rejection of the same by the State Government, whereas the representation was actually rejected on 27.8.2008. In any case nothing will turn on this minor discrepancy. Therefore, there is no force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ;