R.K. Rastogi, J. - (1.) THIS habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the detention order dated 10.6.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Ghazipur Respondent No. 2 against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention under the above Act.
(2.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed by all the four respondents and in reply to those counter affidavits, the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavit. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned .AGA for the Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and have gone through the writ petition, the counter affidavits as well as the rejoinder affidavit. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 8.5.2008 Case Crime No. 1134 of 2008 under Sections 489-A, 489-B and 489-C was registered against the petitioner Dhanushdhari Mishra and co-accused Jairam Ram and on the basis of registration of that case, an order was passed against him by the District Magistrate on 10.6.2008 for his detention under the National Security Act. Aggrieved with that order, the petitioner filed this habeas corpus writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that there has been inordinate delay in disposal of the representation submitted by the petitioner against his detention and so his detention is vitiated. A perusal of the documents referred to above reveals that the petitioner had submitted his representation to the Jail Superintendent, Ghazipur on 24.6.2008. The Jail Superintendent forwarded the representation to the District Magistrate on the same date. This representation was received in the office of the District Magistrate on 25.6.2008. The District Magistrate called for comments from the Superintendent of Police on that representation on 26.6.2008. The comments were received from the office of the Superintendent of Police on 2.7.2008. Thereafter, the District Magistrate considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected it vide his order dated 4.7.2008. Thereafter, he sent the representation addressed to the State Government on 4.7.2008 by special messenger and the representation addressed to Central Government was sent by registered post on the same date. The representation addressed to the State Government was received in the office of the State Government on 7.7.2008. The State Government sent the same to the Advisory Board on 8.7.2008. It also sent a copy of the representation to the Central Government by speed post on 9.7.2008. The concerned Section of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 9.7.2008. It was examined by the Under Secretary on 10.7.2008 and put before the Joint Secretary on 11.7.2008. There were holidays of second Saturday and Sunday on 12.7.2008 and 13.7.2008 and thereafter the Officer on Special Duty and the Secretary examined the representation on 14.7.2008 and it was rejected by the Secretary on the same date and thereafter the information of rejection of the representation was sent to the petitioner on 15.7.2008 by radio gram.;