JAVED AKHTAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the Order of detention of the petitioner passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act. Annexure No. 1 to the Writ Petition was presented before the Court. The Division Bench granted time to the State Counsel to file the counter affidavit. The counter affidavit of Sri Harbhajan Singh, District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and of Sri Banshi Dhar Pandey, UDA in the Confidential Section 6, U.P.Secretariate, Lucknow and affidavit of Sri O.I.Singh, Dy. Jailor, Kanpur Nagar were filed. After the counter affidavits of the District Magistrate and the State Government, the petition was admitted on 5-4-96. The notice was issued in this case to the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India who is also opposite party and the Unions Standing Counsel had received for them. No counter affidavit on behalf of the Union of India has been filed. Rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavits of the District Magistrate and the State Government and the Dy. Jailor has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) The order of detention dated 23-9-95, Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition, was executed and served to the petitioner on 25-9-95 in Jail through Jail authorities. The order of approval under Section ,3(4) of the Act was passed by the State on 30-9-95. Reference under Section 5(3) of the Act was made to the Central Government on 30-9-95. The petitioner's representation dated 14-10-95 was submitted through the Jail authorities which was forwarded to the District Magistrate on 16-10-95. The representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on 17-10-95. The representation was placed before the Advisory Board on 18-10-95. The copy of the representation was sent to the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act on 18-10-95. The District Magistrate sent the comments to the State on 30-10-95. It is to be noted that the District Magistrate sent the petitioner's representation which was received by the State Government on 17-10-95 and the comments were sent by the District Magistrate, Kanpur on 30-10-95. It has been stated that the comments on the representation was put up before the Advisory Board on 31-10-95 and the same day the comments were also sent to the Central Government. On 1-11-95 the State Government rejected the representation. On 3-11-95 hearing before the Advisory Board is said to have taken place and on 21-11-95, the order for confirmation was passed. On 16-11-95 the Central Government communicated that the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

(3.) The petitioner in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the Writ Petition stated that the petitioner's representation dated 14-10-95 sent through the Superintendent, District Jail, Kanpur Nagar against the ground of detention to the detaining authority, as also the State Government and the Central Government but no communication was made to him as to what has transpired upon the said representation. It has been stated that the detaining authority exercised the powers infringing the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. It has been stated that the Central Government and the State Government have not bothered to consider the representation and the facts and circumstances therein. It has been stated that the State Government did not consider the petitioner's representation before referring it to the Advisory Board or placing it before the Board. The District Magistrate Sri Har Bhajan Singh in para 18 of the counter affidavit denied the averments. In para 19 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that after considering, the said representation, the same was rejected by the State Government and the petitioner's representation has been found without merit by the authorities.