SHABBAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHABBAN, son of Babu has filed this Habeas Corpus writ petition challenging the detention order dated 6-1-1993 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (For short, the Act).

(2.) THIS writ petition was admitted and counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged. An additional factor was brought to the notice of the Court by filing a supplementary affidavit and that is that three other persons, namely, Nazim, Qazim and Yasin who were similarly detained by orders of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 11-1-1993 in each case stand released from the jail because the Advisory Board had not recommended their detention and had come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient cause for permitting their detention to continue as a result of which they are enjoying liberty. On filing of this supplementary affidavit opportunity was granted to the State Counsel to file a supplementary counter affidavit in reply. Two such affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of the State Government and the other by the District Magistrate himself. Reference to the various allegations in the respective affidavit of the parties shall be adverted to at the relevant places at the subsequent paragraphs.

(3.) THE principal argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the grounds of detention against all the four detenus being identical and three of the detenus having been released from detention in pursuance of the opinion of the Advisory Board the petitioners' continued detention on the same ground and not only bad and illegal but also amounts to violative of law of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since this is the only point canvassed, no other grounds taken in the writ petition have to be taken up for discussion. It must be stated here that Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. has tried to establish the contention that some of the materials which may have been relied upon by the Detaining Authority concerning the petitioner Shabban appears to have been over and above the materials placed relating to the detention of Nazim, Qazim and Yasin. He, however, candidly agreed, and rightly so, that the grounds of detention of the petitioner was identical with the grounds of detention of Nazim, Qazim and Yasin.