Vinod Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A., for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner has been detained by the District Magistrate, Varanasi vide his order dated 31.5.2008 under the National Security Act, wielding his power under Section 3 (2) of the said Act. THE grounds for detention are contained in Annexure-2 to this habeas corpus writ petition. We do not consider it necessary to go into the details of the grounds as only on a short question of delay, this habeas corpus writ petition can be jdugmented. It is contended by Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the detenu-petitioner that the activity, on the basis of which the petitioner-detenu was booked under National Security Act was dated 7.3.2008. The detenu was arrested on 24.4.2008 and 2.5.2008 was the date fixed for hearing of his bail application before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi. The detention order of the petitioner was passed on 31.5.2008, which was served on the same day through Superintendent District Jail, Varanasi. After receiving the detention order and the grounds thereof, under Section 8 of the Act, the petitioner made a representation on 11.6.2008, which was forwarded to the detaining authority through Superintendent Jail on the same day and was received to him as well. After receipt of the said representation, District Magistrate, Varanasi called for the comments from the sponsoring authority and according to the case of the detaining authority, sponsoring authority submitted the said comments only on 18.6.2008 after a delay of 7 days. The grounds for not sending the comments by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, as has been pleaded in paragraph No. 3 of the supplementary counter-affidavit by the detaining authority is "various pressing problems and other administrative works". After receiving the comments from the sponsoring authority, the detaining authority rejected the representation of the petitioner on 21.6.2008, on which date it forwarded the detenu's representation as well as his comments to the State Government and to the Union of India, other two respondents.
(3.) WE do not consider it necessary to go into further details of facts. Since the detention of the petitioner was confirmed by the State Government as well as by Union of India, this habeas corpus writ petition has been filed challenging the detention order. Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the explanation offered by the detaining authority that there was "pressing problems and other administrative works" in sending the comments by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, is no explanation at all. He further contended that in fact the terminology used in the counter-affidavit by the detaining authority is so vague that it cannot be accepted at all as the explanation offered by the detaining authority to explain the delay caused at the hands of sponsoring authority. He further contended that had there been "pressing problem and other administrative works", the same should have come out through the affidavit of S.S.P., Varanasi which has not been furnished at all. He further submitted that such vague explanations in such matters where a person has been detained under the National Security Act, where he does not possess a right to bail, should not be accepted and it is the responsibility of the detaining authority to explain each and every delay occasioned especially in disposal of representation made by the detenu. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Kamarunnisa v. State, AIR 1990 SC 1640.;