R.K.Rastogi, J. - (1.) THE habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Intezar challenging his detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and for seeking his release from detention under the above Act.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 21.6.08 Case Crime No. 26 of 2008 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 3/5/8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. THEre was tension in the village due to cow slaughtering committed by the petitioner and his colleagues and public order was disturbed. Hence, S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur submitted a report for his detention under the National Security Act through proper channel to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the District Magistrate being satisfied with this report and the recommendations of the concerned authorities on that report passed an order on 30.6.08 for his detention under Section 3 (2) of the above Act. THE petitioner submitted his representations against that order but they were rejected. THEn he filed this petition. Counter-affidavits have been filed by all the respondents and rejoinder-affidavits have also been filed from the side of the petitioner in reply to those counter-affidavits. A date was fixed for hearing of arguments and learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the respondents No. 2 to 4 were present. But learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Union of India did not appear even after revision of the list though the counter-affidavit of the Union of India is on record. We, therefore, heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.G.A. and went through the record including the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1 and now we are deciding the writ petition on merits. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been undue delay on the part of Union of India in communication of the rejection order passed on his representation. He referred to paras 4 and 5 of the counter-affidavit of Smt. Lalit Prabha Srivastava, Under Secretary in the Home Ministry in the Union of India who had stated that the representation of the petitioner dated 7.7.08 alongwith para wise comments was received at the concerned Desk in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 18.7.08 and then it was put up before the Under Secretary for process on 21.7.08. The Under Secretary after considering the case put it up before the Director (Security) with her comments on the same date. The Director (Security) also considered the same and put it up before the Joint Secretary on the same date. The Joint Secretary considered it and forwarded the same to the Home Secretary on the same date and the Union Home Secretary rejected the representation on 22.7.08. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no delay upto 22.7.08 in disposal of the representation but thereafter the intimation of the rejection was to be given to the petitioner at the earliest. But its intimation was given on 28.7.08. He submitted that in this way there has been delay of six days in communication of the rejection order and so continued detention of the petitioner is vitiated.
(3.) THE only explanation given in para 5 of the counter-affidavit regarding this delay is that after decision of the Home Secretary on the representation on 22.7.08, the file was received back in the concerned section on 28.7.08. We are unable to understand as to how this delay of six days was caused in sending the file from the office of the Home Secretary to the concerned section in the Home Ministry dealing with the representations of habeas corpus. It is to be seen that after receipt of the file in concerned section of the Ministry, the entire proceedings were completed within two days from 21.7.08 to 22.7.08 only from the stage of the Under Secretary to the stage of Union Home Secretary and after rejection of the representation, the file took six days time in reaching back in the concerned section of the Under Secretary. THEre is no explanation for this unreasonable delay of six days in communication of the rejection order and so further continued detention of the petitioner stands vitiated on this ground. It further appears that the petitioner again made his representation on 24.7.08 which was received in the office of the concerned Section of the Home Ministry of the Central Government on 5.8.08. It was put up before the concerned authority on 6.8.08 and was rejected by the concerned authority but the information of the rejection order was given after the lapse of a week on 13.8.08 as is apparent from para 10 of the counter-affidavit of Smt. Lalit Prabha Srivastava. Smt. Lalit Prabha Srivastava has stated that the photo copy of the letter of rejection dated 13.2.08 was being annexed with the counter-affidavit as Annexure-C.A. 2 but no such Annexure has been filed with this counter-affidavit which contains only one Annexure termed as 'Annexure-C.A. 1' which is wireless message dated 28.7.08.;