ANIS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Magistrate, Allahabad passed an order of detention against the petitioner namely Sri Anis on 16-3-1994 under Sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In pursuance of the above order, the petitioner was arrested on 17-3-1994 and the detention order was served on the petitioner on the same day and the grounds for detaining the petitioner were also served on the petitioner along with 20 documents referred to at the end of the grounds. It is admitted on record that besides the documents mentioned as annexures to the aforesaid grounds, no other document was supplied to the petitioner. The grounds and the documents supplied to the petitioner has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. On 25-3-1994 the State Government approved the detention order under Sec. 3(4) of the Act. On 26-3-94 the report as required under Sec. 3(5) of the Act was forwarded to the Central Government. On 31-3-1994 the Central Government received the report sent by the State Government and examined the same but the decision taken thereon was not communicated to the petitioner. On 1-4-1994 the petitioner filed his representation against his detention to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. The representation was handed over to the Superintendent of Jail on the said date. The District Magistrate forwarded the petitioner's representation on 6-4-1994. The representation was placed before the Advisory Board on 8-4-1994. The Advisory Board permitted the petitioner to appear in person and fixed 26-4-1994 for hearing the petitioner in person. On 3-5-1994 the Advisory Board submitted its report and on 23-5-1994 the order of detention passed against the petitioner has been confirmed under Sec. 12 of the Act. This array of events relates to the decision of the State Government on the petitioner's representation.

(2.) On 21-4-1994 the State Government received the representation of the petitioner which was addressed to the Central Government. On 23-4-1994 the State Government forwarded the representation to the Central Government and on 2-5-1994 the Central Government received the said representation. Thereafter, on 3-5-1994 the Central Government desired some information from the State Government in connection with the petitioner's representation. The State Government, however, did not choose to send the information desired by the Central Government Consequent thereto, the Central Government sent a reminder to the State Government on 23-5-1994. On 27-5-1994 the State Government's information reached the Central Government and on 4-6-94 the Home Minister rejected the petitioner's representation.

(3.) The present writ petition has been filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the corpus of the petitioner before the Court and set him at liberty.