VIRENDRA PRATAP SHAHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Habeus Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India moved by the petitioner Virendra Pratap Shahi (hereinafter referred to as the detenuT1) challenging the validity of the detention order dated 17th November, 1984, passed against him by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) preventively detaining him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The grounds of detention have been annexed as Annexure liT to the petition. They are, as translated in English, as follows:

(3.) Being subjectively satisfied, on the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the detaining authority passed the detention order on 17-11-1984, which was served on the detenu on 18-11-1984. It has been contended on behalf of the detenu that under section 11 of the National Security Act, the Advisory Board shall after considering the materials placed before it and after calling for such further opinion as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from any person called for the purpose through the appropriate Government or from the person concerned, and, if in any particular case, it considers it essential so to do if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing in person, submit its report to the appropriate Government within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned and according to the learned counsel for the detenu the Advisory Board has taken more than seven weeks in the instant case, therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed. The detention order became effective only on 19-11-84. The Advisory Board submitted its report on 7-1-1985. Eleven days of the month of November, 1984 added to thirty one days of the month of December, 1904 and if 7th is left six days of the month of January. 1985 would make forty eight days and if 7th is also included that would amount to forty nine days In any case, the report of the Advisory Board was submitted within seven weeks from the date of detention. The learned counsel wrongly counted the days because instead of from the date of detention he started counting from the date of detention order. Thus the report of the Advisory Board was submitted within seven months as required by section 11(1) of National Security Act and the contention on behalf of the detenu has no force.