- (1.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23-12-1998, passed by respondent No. 2, Dis trict Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act detaining the petitioner under the Act. The petitioner has also challenged the continued detention under the impugned order on the ground of delay in deciding his representation by the Central Govern ment.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had sub mitted his representation on 29-12-1998. This representation was received by the Central Government on 4-1- 1999 through District Magistrate. The representation was processed and certain information was required from the State Government vide a crash wireless message dated 8-1-1999. The information was received from the State Government on 28-1-1999. There after, Director, Ministry of Home Affairs considered the representation of the petitioner on 1-2- 1999 and put up the same with his comments before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on 2-2-1999. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs in his turn considered the representation of the petitioner and put up the same with his comments before the Home Minister on 2-2-1999. The repre sentation was rejected by the Home Mini- steron8-2-1999. Referring the counter-affidavit filed by R. A. Khan on behalf of State Government, respondent No. 3, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Government in fact vide a crash wireless message dated 8-1-99, asked for the opinion of the Advisory Board. The State Government however, by a Radiogram dated 12-1-1999, informed that the report of the Advisory Board has not as yet been received, hence it cannot be made available. The report of the Advisory Board dated 27-1-1999 was received on the same day and there after it was sent by the State Government to the Central Government on 27-1 -1999. Learned coun sel has submitted that if the report of the Advisory Board was not available the Central Government was not justified in postponing the consideration of the repre sentation of the petitioner and the delay after 12-1-1999 up to 1-2-1999 is unjus tified and the representation of the petitioner could have been decided much earlier. For this submission, learned coun sel has placed reliance in the judgment of this Court in the case of habeas corpus writ petition No. 21277 of 1998, Pappu alias Ausan Singh v. Superintendent, District Jail, Mainpur and others, decided on 17-12-1998, 1999 JIC 234. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation of the petitioner com plete with all material and comments of the authorities was placed before the Home Minister on 2-2-1999. It was rejected on 8-2-1999 i. e. after six days. It has been submitted that in para 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that 6th and 7th February, 1999 were holidays. Such explanation has been disapproved by this Court in several cases and thus the delay caused at the stage of Home Minister remains unexplained and the petitioner continued detention has been rendered illegal and he is entitled for release. For this submission reliance has been placed in the case of Rajammal v. State of Tamil Nadu andothers, JT 1998 (8) SC 598.
(3.) SRI. S. N. SRIvastava, learned coun sel appearing for respondent No. 4 sub mitted that the opinion of the Advisory Board rightly required by the respondent No. 4 for his consideration before deciding the representation. It has also been sub mitted that there is no provision in the Act which prohibits Central Government from considering the opinion of Advisory Board before deciding the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that otherwise also the Central Govern ment was justified in a waiting for the report of the Advisory Board as in case the opinion considered would have been in favour of the petitioner, it would not be necessary for Central Government to decide the representation at all. SRI SRIvas tava has also submitted that the delay before the Home Minister has been ex plained and it is not clear that the repre sentation was considered and decided promptly. Such delay of two days cannot be taken to be unreasonable. Sri Mahendra Pratap learned A. G. A appearing for the State of U. P also submitted that there is no delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. It was rejected on 2-1- 1999 and the delay on the part of the Central Government has been sufficiently explained.;