- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In all these habeas corpus pelilions, common questions of law and fact are involved, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BY means of these petitions, pelilioncrs pray for issuance of a writ, or ders or directions in The nature of habeas corpus to relcase the petitioners from detention and declaring their detention as illegal. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the naunx of ceniorciri quashing the detention orders dated 11 -6-1999, 14-6-1999 and 23-6-1999 passed by District Magistralc, Jhansi has also been made. Relevant facts of the case giving rise to the above noted pelilions, in brief are that the detention orders noted above were served upon the petitioners atone with the grounds of detention, while they were in jail in connection with case crime No. 16/99 under Section 395/397, IPC etc. of P. S. Month, District Jhansi, said order-were based on sofitary incident dated 22-2-1999. It was staled that said date was fixed for filing nomination papers of the can didates for the post of Administrafor of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti of Distrkt Jhansi. For filing his nomination paper, Gajendra Singh son of Deo Singh s/o Samariya P. S. Shahjahanpur, reached the premises of Devetopment Btock Month by his vehicle No. DDD 1664 with Bhajju son of Manohar, Ram Kumar son of Natthu Ram, Prakash Singh son of Dhani Ram r/o village Samiriya and by another vehicle Armada, Uma Shanker Singh, Home Guard Bal Kishan, Rajesh son of Ram Pratap r/o Tafore reached there at 12 a. m. Before the aforesaid persons reached the place of incident, it is alleged that the petitioners were present there, who were armed with fire arms and who already filed their nomination papers. As soon as Gajendra Singh and his associates got down of their vehicles, petitioners Deep alias Deep Narain Singh Yadav exhorted his associates to teach them how nomina tion papers are filed, they should not es cape, as they did not like any nomination paper to be filed against them. On which, it is alleged that the petitioners and others started firing indiscriminately with a view to kill Gajendra Singh and his associates; but no bedy is stated to have received gun-shof injuries. Gajendra Singh is alleged to have been beaten by butt of the gun. Others are also alleged to have been assaulted. In the said incident, Gajendra Singh and others received severe bedily injuries. The petitioners and others are also alleged to have toofed gotden chain and money from Gajendra Singh by Charan Singh and Kamlesh. In respect to the said incident case crime No. 16/99 under Section 395/397, IPC and Section 3-C (3) of the Representation of People Act, was registered at police station Month at 13. 45 hours. Said incident is also alleged to have been reported by police constable bearing Nos. 426 and 707. Thereafter, police personnel reached the place of oc currence. It has been stated that on ac count of the said incident, the entire area was gripped with fear and tension, which has adversely affected the public order. The residents of the locality ctosed their shops due to fear. The accused persons are alleged to have been arrested in connec tion with the aforesaid incident and sent to District Jail, Jhansi. Petitioners, there after, applied for their bail, but their applications were rejected by the Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court. Sub sequently, on 2nd bail application being filed, they were relcased on bail by the High Court. With respect to the aforesaid inci dent, another FIR was lodged by Ram Kumar son of Narain Das Yadav r/o village Shahjahanpur, against Gajendra Singh, Rajendra and Daddu, which was registered as case crime No. 16-A of 1999 under Sec tion 395/397, IPC and under Section 2-C (3) of the Representation of Peoples Act. Papers relating to the aforesaid inci dent were, thereafter, communicated to the District Magistrate, on the basis of which he has passed the order of detention dated 11-6-1999 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, for short the Act. On receipt of the aforesaid orders, petitioners filed representations dated 21-6-1999, which were forwarded by the Dis trict Magistrate, Jhansi to the State Government on 24-6-1999. The repre sentations were received by the State Government on 25-6-1999. The matter was, thereafter, referred to Advisory Beard by the State Government vide its letter dated 25- 6-1999 along with the detailed note. The representations of the petitioners are alleged to have been rejected by the State Government on 28-6-1999. Said order was communicated to the petitioners on 3- 6-1999. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi vide telegraphic mes sage dated 28-6-1999, asked the opinion of the Advisory Beard. The report of the Advisory Beard was received by the State Government, on 22-7- 1999, which was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on the same date. The Ministry of Home Affairs has also confirmed the detention of the petitioners for a period of 12 months from the date of their deten tion, hence the present petitions.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Virendra Bhatia vehe mently urged that before the detaining authority, the relevant material, par ticulars of papers relating to cross-case i. e. case crime No. 16-A of 1999, bail applica tions and the order of relcased passed by High Court, were not placed, which ought to have been influenced his mind not to pass any order against the petitioner and theorder has been passed in contravention of the provisions of Sections 4 (4) and 3 (5) of the Act. It was also urged that the order of detention was passed to ensure fair and free election of co-operative societies. Said election has already taken place on 11-6-1999. Therefore, there was no likelihood of disturbance of public order after the said date. It was also urged that the detention order has been passed without application of mind and whofly arbitrarily by the detaining authority. On the other hand learned Government advocate supported the validity of the impugned older. It was urged that all relevant material was placed before the detaining authority and the im pugned orders were passed after perusal of all relevant material before him. The im pugned order of detention was, thus, quite valid and legal. Learned Government Ad vocate has further submitted that the papers relating to the cross-case were at al 1 not relevant for the purposes of present case and even if said papers were not placed before the detaining authority before the impugned order was passed, same does not affect the validity of the impugned orders.;