BABBAN ALIAS BABBU Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Babban alias Babbu has impugned the order dated 11th June 2002 passed by the second opposite party Mr. Hemant Rao, District Magistrate, Moradabad detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 11th June 2002 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 11-6-2002 itself and their true copies have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to this petition.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since, in our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the basis of the averments contained in paragraph-17 of the petition and ground-K of paragraph-21 thereof, and for the decision thereof, reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu contained in the grounds of detention is not necessary, we are not adverting to them. The averments contained in paragraph-17 of the petition and ground-K of paragraph-21 thereof are that the petitioner-detenu made representation which has not been dealt with promptitude and sense of urgency and this has resulted in violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Rishad Murtaza, learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu strenuously urged that although representations dated 28-6-2002 made by the petitioner-detenu to the State Government (opposite party No. 1), the Central Government (opposite party No. 4) and the Advisory Board were received by opposite party No. 2, i.e. the District Magistrate, Moradabad on 28-6-2002, there was an inordinate delay of five days on his part in forwarding it to the State Government. He pointed out that the said representations were sent along with para-wise comments of the detaining authority to the State Government with a covering letter on 3-7-2002. Mr. Rishad Murtaza urged that the detaining authority has furnished no explanation for not sending the said representations for a period of five days. He consequently contended that the detenu's continued detention has been rendered bad in law.

(3.) The averments contained in paragraph-17 of the petition and ground-K of paragraph-21 thereof have been replied to in paragraph 18 of the return of the detaining authority. The said paragraph reads thus:-