VINOD SHEO HARE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinod Shiv Hare, petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenuT) has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of detention order dated 27.8.1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Agra (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act No. 65 of 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, we feel that it is not necessary to refer to all the facts mentioned and points raised in the writ petition and consider them in detail because, in our opinion, this writ petition can be disposed of on two short points discussed hereinafter. Learned counsel for the detenu has pointed that in paragraph 11 of the petition it is alleged that the State Government never reported the matter to the Central Government together with the grounds and order ofT detention and also did not send the opinion of the State Government bearing the necessity for passing the order of detention under the Act and thereby subsection (5) of section 3 of the Act was not complied with and it rendered the detention order illegal. Learned counsel for the detenu has referred to the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Istafa Hussain, Upper Division Assistant, Confidential Section VIII. U. P. Secretariat, Lucknow (U.P.) filed on behalf of the State Government, where, in paragraph 4 in reply to above para 11 it is stated that the law does not contemplate any action by the Union of India oil the representation of the petitioner and as such the question of Union Government communicating any such matter does not arise at all.

(3.) In the said paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit reference has been made to the representation of the petitioner which was one of the subject matters of paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The other contention raised in paragraph 11 of the writ petition as already referred to earlier was not controverting by the State Government. It follows there from that the State Government did not report the fact of approval of the detention order to the Central Government as envisaged by Section 3(5) of the Act. This non-compliance renders the detention order invalid.