LAWS(ALL)-1986-3-11

SANJIV YADAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 03, 1986
SANJIV YADARA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Sanjeev Yadav has challenged the order of his detention dated 6th June 1985 passed under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act (for short the Act) by District Magistrate Agra hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority. A copy of the aforesaid detention order dated 6th June 1985 (annexure-7) with the ground of detention (annexure-8) were served upon the petitioner who was already in jail on that date. This order of detention was approved by the State Government on 14-6-85 and petitioner was communicated of that approval through district authorities on 15-6-85. The petitioner made representation to the State Government through jail authority which was rejected by the State Government on 21-6-85 after due processing. This rejection was communicated to the petitioner on 24-6-85. The State Government referred the detention of the petitioner to the Advisory Board on 17-6-85. The Advisory Board after hearing the petitioner on 17-6-85 submitted its opinion to the State Government on 24-7-85. After considering the opinion of the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the aforesaid order of detention of the petitioner on 29-7-85.

(2.) THE ground of detention as explained in the counter affidavit of the detaining authority Sri P. K. Misra is an incident dated 9-5-85 wherein the petitioner is alleged to have thrown an acid bottle on one Km. Ranjana Soni with intention to kill or deface her at about 2.45 P. M. while she was sitting in the Examination Hall with other examinees, Km. Ranjana Soni was badly injured. Five other students namely Km. Rashmi Agarwal, Km. Suman Mathew, Km. Kabita Saran of M.Sc. (Final) and Km. Nelu Upadhaya of B. A, II year also received simple burn injuries.

(3.) ONE more incident dated 4-10-83 was in the back-ground of this incident by the detaining authority when he considered the above incident dated 9-5-85. That incident related to an alleged attempt to demand money by the petitioner from a citizen on pistol point on 4-10-83.