LAWS(ALL)-2006-6-6

UMESH MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

Decided On June 20, 2006
UMESH MAHESHWARI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant, J. These two Habeas Corpus petitions have been moved by the petitioners challenging the detention orders dated 21st of July, 2005 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petitions), passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) WE heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 13 of 2005. it is admitted that the petitioner Umesh Maheshwari alias Umesh Pahalwan has been the Vice-Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Kashipur for two years and thereafter Manoj Chaudhary (deceased) succeeded him for the said post till his death. It is also submitted that the above petitioner and the deceased were on inimical terms due to the said post of Vice-Chairman. IN reply to the contents of para 2 of the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 14 of 2005, filed on behalf of petitioner Gurumukh Singh alias Gorkha, it has been stated in the separate affidavit by respondent No. 2 that Gurumukh Singh alias Gorkha has been named in the FIR and specific role of firing on the deceased is assigned to him. IN both the counter-affidavits, in reply to the contents of para 10 of the writ petitions, it is stated by the answering respondent that the petitioners namely Umesh Maheshwari alias Umesh Pahalwan and Gurumukh Singh alias Gorkha both were hardcore criminals and as such due to their terror no person from the public could dare to speak against them and both of them were earlier acquitted by the trial Courts mostly on the ground that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile. It is further stated in the counter-affidavits filed by respondent No. 2 that representations of the petitioners which were addressed to the Government of Uttaranchal and Government of INdia were sent on 4-8-2005 with parawise comments thereon, it is further stated in the counter-affidavits that the representations of the petitioners were rejected by the Government of Uttaranchal.