- (1.) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashment of detention order dated 19-11-2008, passed by District Magistrate, Sultanpur with a prayer for release from illegal custody.
(2.) From a careful reading of rival pleadings and on due consideration of submissions of learned Counsel for parties, it appears undisputed that the detention order was passed on 19-11-2008 by District Magistrate, Sultanpur (O.P. No. 3) in exercise of his powers under Section 3(3) of National Security Act (for short "the N.S. Act"), and it was served upon the petitioner, while being lodged in jail in connection with offences registered under Sections 489-A, 489-B, 489-C and 489-D of the I.P.C. The detention order was approved/confirmed by State Government on 24-11-2008. A representation to Central Government was made on the same day on 24-11-2008 through District Magistrate concerned, which was forwarded to Central Government on 29-11-2008 after five days. It took 11 days thereafter for being delivered on 10-12-2002 in the concerned Cell of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which deals with detention matters of U.P. The representation was initially examined by the Under Secretary concerned on 11-12-2008 and then forwarded to Home Secretary of Central Government being the competent authority on 12-12-2008, the next day. However, the Home Secretary took seven days to decide the representation, which was finally rejected on 19-12-2009. Thereafter, it appears from the record that it took further 11 days in transmitting the rejection order from the office of Home Secretary to the Office of Under Secretary, Home Affairs, Government of India. According to the averments in affidavit on behalf of Central Government, it was communicated to the petitioner on 31-12-2008, but this fact is disputed by learned Counsel for petitioner, who contends that it was never served upon the petitioner for it would be evident from the averments of Jail Superintendent in his counter affidavit, that he has not mentioned the date and time when the order was served upon the detenu-petitioner. It is also evident from the submission that the matter was placed before Advisory Board on 17-12-2008 and its report was submitted on 05-01-2009 which was received by the State Government on 06-01-2009.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is settled in a catena of decisions rendered by the Apex Court that a delay in disposal of representation can be a ground for quashing the detention order. Some of the Judgments that learned Counsel for petitioner has referred to are as follow: 1. Harish Pahwa v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1981 SCC(Cri) 589 2. R. Paulsamy v. Union of India and Anr., 1999 SCC(Cri) 549 3. Rama Dhondu Borade v. V.K. Saraf, Commissioner of Police and Ors., 1989 SCC(Cri) 520 4. Solomon Castro v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2001 SCC(Cri) 650. 5. Rajammal v. State of T.N. and Anr., 1999 SCC(Cri) 93 6. Usha Agarwal v. Union of India and Ors., 2007 1 SCC(Cri) 342 7. Harshala Santosh Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2007 1 SCC(Cri) 680;