SANDEEP SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. ADHIKSHAK KENDRIYA KARAGAR FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all the aforesaid writ petitions questions of fact and law are similar and they can conveniently be decided by a common judgment against which learned counsel for the parties have no objection.

(2.) " Petitioners of the aforesaid writ petitions have filed these petitions chal lenging the order dated 21- 12-1998 passed by respondent No. 2, District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under which petitioners have been detained.

(3.) SHRI A. K. Tripathi, learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that Rajammal's case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts of the present case and is distinguishable. In sum and sub stance, the submission of the learned AGA is that in Rajammal's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the delay caused in deciding the representation by the appropriate Government while in the present case the delay is alleged to have been caused by the Central Government which could exercise statutory powers and not under constitutional obligation caused by Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that statutory obligation cannot be equated with con stitutional obligation. Learned counsel for Union of India submitted that Bina Prasad has explained delay in Para 8 of the counter-affidavit and delay of few days was on account of holidays.