ASFAQ ALIAS BHOORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner Asfaq alias Bhoore questions the validity of his detention under section 3 of the National Security Act, authorised by the District Magistrate, Meerut, vide order dated 3rd of September 1983.

(2.) In connection with an offence under section 307 Indian Penal Code said to have been committed on 2nd of April, 1983, petitioner Asfaq was arrested on 28th of August, 1983 and was remanded to Jail custody. While be was still in Jail custody, District Magistrate, Meerut passed an order for his detention under section 3 of the National Security Act on 3rd of September, 1983. The said order as well as the grounds on which it was based were served upon the petitioner the same day. On 18th of September 1983, the petitioner made a representation against his detention which was forwarded to the State Government. In due course the matter was placed before the Advisory Board and the State Government, after considering the report of the Advisory Board and petitioners representation, confirmed his detention, vide its order dated 25th of October, 1983. Aggrieved, the petitioner has now approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioners continued detention under the provisions of Section. 3 of the National Security Act stands vitiated in as much as the representation made by him on 18th of September, 1983 was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of his detention (3rd of September, 1983). In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is mentioned that petitioners representation along with the comments of the detaining authority, dated 22nd of September 1983 was received by the State Government on 23rd of September, 1983. It was placed before the Advisory Board on the same day i.e., on 23rd of the September, 1983. The averment made in the counter-affidavit was sworn on the basis of record. The record produced before us by the State Counsel on 9th January, 1984, however, merely indicated that on 23rd of September, 1983 an order had been made that the representation should be placed be fore the Advisory Board immediately but then it did not indicate that the said representation had actually been forwarded to the State Government on that very day. Accordingly we directed the Government Advocate appearing for the respondents to obtain a certificate from the Advisory Board mentioning the date on which the representation dated 18th of September, 1983 was actually received by the Advisory Board. Learned Government Advocate had produced D.O. No. 8/1984, dated 13th of January, 1984 written by the Registrar of the High Court acting as Secretary to U.P. Advisory Board (Detentions), High Court Building at Lucknow addressed to Joint Secretary, Confidential Department-6, Lucknow according to which the said representation had actually been received by -the Advisory Board on 23rd of September, 1983. We have no reason to doubt the correctness of fact stated in the D.O. dated 13.1.1984. It thus appears that petitioners representation dated 18th of September, 1983 had been placed before the Advisory Board within 21 days of petitioners representation. We are accordingly not satisfied that petitioners continued detention stands vitiated on this account.