SHER SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-detenu Sher Singh has impugned the order dated 2-8-2002, passed by the third opposite party, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, District Magistrate, Agra, detaining him under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 2-8-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 2-8-2002 and their true copies have been collectively filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties. Since in our view this writ petition deserves to succeed on the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition and those contained in Ground No. 28 (h) thereof, we are not adverting to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner detenu contained in the grounds of detention. The substance of the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition and ground No. 28(h) thereof, is that although the petitioner detenu made a representation on 12-8-2002 to opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3, namely; (1) Union of India through Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Internal Security Department), North Block, New Delhi, (2) State of U.P. through Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and (3) District Magistrate, Agra, U.P. the said representation has not been decided till date. However, during the course of submissions Mr. M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his submission to the representation preferred by the petitioner detenu to Union of India.

(3.) The averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition and ground No. 28(h) thereof have been replied to in paragraph 9 of the affidavit of the detaining authority (opposite party No.3), and in paragraph 6 of the return of Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi dated 26-11-2002 and in paragraph 3 of an additional return of the said functionary, dated 31-12-2002. In paragraph 9, the detaining authority has stated thus: