IMTIYAZ MURTAZA,J. - (1.) IMPUGNED herein is the order of detention dated 3.5.2009 passed by District Magistrate Saharanpur. The reliefs sought by means of this petition as are relevant may be excerpted below. "(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of detention dated 3.5.2009 passed by District Magistrate Saharanpur. (ii)issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to set at liberty to the petitioner forthwith."
(2.) THE order of detention impugned herein in its prologue, recapitulates the events leading to initiation of action against the petitioner. The order of detention as a preface recites that the petitioner is a person involved in cow slaughtering along-with his accomplices and the activities of the petitioner are causing alarm and danger to the communal amity and harmony between the two communities i.e. Hindu and Muslims in and around the area. The grounds of detention, it would transpire from the record, are founded on F.I.R. lodged at case crime no. 64 of 2009 under section 3/5/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughters Act at P.S. Fatehpur District Saharanpur. The order of detention impugned herein principally recites the events as contained in the F.I.R lodged by the police itself at case crime no. 64 of 2009 that on 7.4.2008 at about 3 p.m. While the petitioner was busy slaughtering the oxen along-with his accomplices by reciting in undertone "Kalma", the police of P.S. Fatehpur raided the house in question and upon sudden arrival of police, the petitioner along-with few of his accomplices escaped by scaling over the wall while some of his accomplices who were aiding the petitioner in slaughtering were caught red handed. On search of the house, 140 skins relating to cow family some of which were fresh and some were stale, 8 live oxen, two calves and two knives, one Kulhari etc. The search of the house of one of the accomplices of the petitioner namely, Sada also yielded 20 kg of beef, a pair of scales etc. It is further recited in the order that this incident hyped up the tension in the communally sensitive area and the people on both sides collected and raised slogans and all this led to heightened tension and apprehending breaking out of communal riots, the people rushed back to the shelter of their houses and closed the doors and windows and chaotic situation was created and the people ran helter and skelter and as a result, tempo of normal life was disturbed. In order to restore normalcy, police reinforcement was rushed and situation was brought to control with great difficulty. It is further stated that it is likely that he may be enlarged on bail. Looking to the gravity of the crime, it is spelt out, in case the petitioner is admitted to bail, he would indulge in acts which would affect the public order.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned A.G.A at prolix length. Although various arguments were advanced across the bar, but the argument substantially raised is that the petitioner preferred representation dated 4.5.2009 addressed to Union of India, but the same has not yet been decided. We have searched the entire record, but no counter affidavit on behalf of Union of India has forthcoming on record. It is, however, argued on behalf of Union of India that representation dated 4.5.2009 was received on 9.5.2009 and the same was rejected after due deliberations on 19.6.2009. From a glance through the record, it would transpire that on 3.11.2009, 10 days and no more time was granted to the counsel appearing for Union of India to file counter affidavit but on 16.11.2009 when the case was taken up, no counter affidavit had been brought on record. The case was again adjourned to 18.11.2009 affording one more opportunity for filing counter affidavit but again on 18.11.2009, no counter affidavit was filed.;