HARI NARAIN AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The petitioner Hari Narain Awasthi filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus and quashing the impugned order dated 31. 10. 95, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to the arrest and detention of the petitioner are as under: It is said that on the basis of the F. I. R. dated 25. 10. 95 at 12. 30 a. m. which was registered at Crime No. 425 of 1995 under Sections 363,366, 376, 323, 506, I. P. C. P. S. Kidwai Nagar, District. Kanpur Nagar. THE petitioner was arrested at about 3 a. m. in the intervening nights of 24/25th October, 1995 and was sent to the District Jail. THE proposal by the station Officer, P. S. Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur for talcing preventive detention proceedings against the petitioner detenu and two others, namely, Raju Yadav and Satish alias Raju Nigam was submitted on 30th October, 1995. Orders thereon was passed by the District Magistrate on 31st October, 1995, which was executed and served on the petitioner, the same day by the jail authorities in Jail. THE matter for action regarding the preventive detention of the petitioner was referred to the State Government on 2nd November, 1995. THE approval was granted by order dated 8. 11. 95 by the State. THE case was referred to the Advisory Board on 17. 11. 95 and was heard on 11. 12. 95 by the Advisory Board. THE report of the Advisory Board was received by the State on 18. 12. 95 and the detention order was confirmed and approved on 26. 12. 95 by the State. THE order of confirmation was communicated to the petitioner on 28th December, 1995.

(3.) THE necessary counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Sri D. S. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued the petition on behalf of the detenu. He submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated and without application of mind or perusal of necessary records, the petitioner's representation was not considered by the respondents and orders for detention, as proposed, have been confirmed. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the cases of Raju Yedav and Satish alias Raju Nigam. Ke submitted that on the ground of parity also the petitioner was entitled to be set at liberty and order for detention was liable to be vacated.