- (1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. These three writpetition have been filed by Abdul Hafiz, asool Ahmad and Mohd. Shahid chal lenging their Detention under the provisions of National Security Act, Le. under Section 3 (2) of the Act. The deten tion orders against all the three petitioners were passed by the District Magistrate, Etah on 22-9- 1998.
(2.) WE have heard Sri K. S. Rastogi, learned Counsel for petitioner Abdul Hafiz, Sri Virendera Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioners Mohd. Shahid and Rasool Ahmad. WE have also heard learned Government Advocate and the learned Counsel for Union of India. Since the facts in that the three writ petitions are almost common and in each of these petitions the anchor-sheet of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the continued deten tion of the petitioner has been rendered bad in law on account of unexplained and inordinate delay in disposal of the repre sentation of the petitioners by the Central Government, we are disposing of the three petitions by a common judgment. So far as the writ petition No. 104 (HC) of 1999 filed by Abdul Hafiz is concerned, it emerges from the counter-af fidavit filed by Bina Prasad on behalf of Central Government that two repre sentations were filed. The first repre sentation on his behalf was filed by his brother on 26-9-1998. The second one was submitted by the detenue himself on 14-10-1998. These representations were received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 7-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. Both these representations were ex amined and processed by the Home Minis try officials on 12-10-1998 and 26-10-1998. Certain vital information i. e. opinion of Advisory Board was required for deciding these representations. This information was sought through crash wireless messages dated 12-10-1998 and 28-10-1998. First crash wireless message was received by State Government on 14-10-1998. The State Government vide its radiogram dated 15- 10-1998 informed Central Government of the fact that the report of Advisory Board had not been received by them. The counter-affidavit filed by Bina Prasad, Under Secretary Union of India is completely silent regard ing this radiogram and its receipt. This fact is mentioned in the counter- affidavit filed by State Government though its Under Secretary R. A. Khan.
(3.) THE report of the Advisory Board was received by the Central Government on 11-11-1998. Thus the Central Govern ment waited for this report regarding first representation for 30 days and for 14 days with respect to second representation. On 16-11-1998, Deputy Secretary examined the case and prepared his com ments. The case was put up before Joint Secretary on 17-11-1998. In turn he presented the case before Home Minister on 17-11- 1998. The Home Minister rejected the representation of this detenue on23-ll-1998.;