VISHAMBHAR SINGH YADAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIRIDHAR Malaviya, J. The petitioner has challenged his detention in pursuance of an order dated 26-6-1991 passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The grounds of detention as supplied to the petitioner in substance were that he had disputed the public order as he had caused disruption in the polling process in the city of Kanpur on 15-6-1991. However, as we are not going to decide in this case whether the activities of the petitioner were or were not calculated to affect the maintenance of public order, it is not necessary to give the details of the grounds in this judgment.

(2.) WHAT has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in this case is that the petitioner had sent a representation to the President of India by registered post on 12-7-1991 but till the date of filing of the writ petition i. e. 22-8-1991 he had heard nothing from the concerned authorities about the fate of that representation. In the counter-affidavits which have been filed by all the respondents in this case including the Union of India the District Magistrate and the State Government, excepet the Union of India, none of the respondents have tiled any reply to the assertion made in this regard in paragraph 37 of the petition. However, as the counter-affidavits had been filed, learned counsel for the petitioner did not propose to file the rejoinder affidavit and urged that on the basis of the counter-affidavit this writ petition may be finally disposed of at this stage itself although the petition had not been formally admitted when it was presented in this Court on 22-8-1991. We have acceded to the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner and are, therefore, disposing of this writ petitition at the stage of admission itself as is provided under this rules of the Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) IN view of the position of law enunciated above, it has to be held that there was inordinate delay in the disposal of the petitioners' repre sentation made to the President of INdia on 12-7-1991, which has rendered continued detention of the petitioner bad in the eyes of law.