ASHOK KUMAR MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, by filing this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 15-8-1997 passed against him by the District Magistrate, Rae-Bareli, detaining him under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. At the time when the detention order was passed the petitioner was in jail and it was served on him on the same date.

(2.) THE order was passed on two grounds which need not be mentioned be cause the petition succeeds otherwise and the learned Counsel for the petitioner also confined his arguments that there has been delay in disposing of the representation of the petitioner both by the State Govern ment as well as the Central Government.

(3.) SO far as the disposal of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government is concerned, it is not a dif ferent story. The counter-affidavit filed by Mr. Rohtas Singh, under Secretary, Minis try of Home Affairs, Government of India, shows that the representation of the petitioner, dated 26-8-1997 was received on 19-9-1997 through the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli. It again shows the callousness with which the District Magistrate, Rae Bareli, treated this mat ter. The Government of India is said to have asked for some comments from the State Government by means of wireless message dated 24-9- 1997 but the State Government seems to have slept over the matter and did not respond. Ultimately the Government of India took up the repre sentation of the petitioner for considera tion without comments of the State Government and the Deputy Secretary submitted it to the Joint Secretary on 7- 10-1997. The Joint Secretary put up the file