ABDUL MALIK Vs. ADHIKSHAK JANPAD KARAGAR BARENLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above-noted three petitions raise a common question for consideration, hence, as agreed by learned Counsel, they have been heard together and arc being disposed of by a common order. Minor difference regard ing certain dates, which would make no material difference, shall be indicated at the relevant place.

(2.) PETITIONERS are detained under Sec tion 3 (2) of the National Security Act, the detention order of the petitioner Abdul Malik is dated 18-5-1998, the detention orders of the petitioners Abdul Khalik and Abdul Rashid have been passed on 20/21-5-1998. The order of detention of Abdul Malik indicates three grounds of deten tion mentioning an incident which oc curred on 27-2-1998 in respect of which a Case Crime No. 217 of 1998 under Section 307,1. P. C was registered at Police Station Haldwani, district Nainital. The other incident is dated 19-3-1998 in respect of which a Case Crime No. 74 of 1998 was registered at Police Station Bhojipura, dis trict Bareilly under Sections 147,148,149, 427,307 and 302, I. P. C. The incident mentioned in ground No. 3 is dated 8-4-1998 in connection where of a Crime Case No. 351 of 1998 under Sections 147,148,149,307, 352,353, 242,224, 225, 511, 427, 504 and 506, I. P. C. was registered at Police Station Haldwani. In so far as the other two petitioners, namely, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Rashid are concerned there was an additional ground relating to an incident dated 4-10-1995 in connection with Crime Case No. 1187 of 1995 was registered under Sections 307,506,342 and 302, I. P. C. at Police Station Haldwani, district Nainital.

(3.) FOR purposes of submissions made before us, a few dates will be relevant which may be indicated. Petitioner Abdul Malik was served with the order of deten tion dated 18-5-1998, the same day while in jail. The detention orders of other two petitioners namely, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Rashid have been passed on 20/21-5-1998 and served upon them on 21-5-1998. The detention orders after having been duly approved by the State Govern ment, their cases were referred to the Ad visory Board. So far as their repre sentations to the Central Government are concerned, the detenu Abdul Malik preferred the representation to the Central Government on 28-5-1998. Rep resentations of two other detenus namely, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Rashid were preferred to the Central Government on 9/6/1998. The representation preferred by Abdul Malik was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 11-6-1998 and the representations of other two detenus namely, Abdul Khalid and Abdul Rashid were received on 9-6- 1998. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Central Govern ment, it is indicated that the repre sentations were immediately processed for consideration and it was found that certain vital information was necessary for further consideration, hence the same was re quired from the State Government through a crash wireless message dated 15-6-1998. The message, as required, was sent by the State Government on 9-7-1998 which was received by Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 10-7-1998 where after cases of detenus were put up before the Director of Minis try of Home Affairs on 13-7-1998 and the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs considered the matter on 14-7-1998. Their cases were put up before the Home Minister on 14-7-1998. According to the counter- affidavit, the Home Minister himself considered the cases and rejected the representation by order dated 2-8-1998. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the required infor mation became effectively available to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs only on 10-7-1998 and ex cluding the holidays which have been indi cated about eight, the matter was finally decided on 2-8- 98. Hence, submission is that there is no inordinate delay on the part of the Central Government in con sidering and disposing of the repre sentation.