SARJU PRASAD SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI D.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a request that he be permitted to delete respondent No. 4, Sen ior Superintendent of Police, Basti, from the array of respondents in this Habeas Corpus Petition as respondent No. 4 is not the relevant authority against whom any relief has been sought in this writ petition. The prayer is allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to delete respon dent No. 4 Superintendent of Police, Basti, from array of parties and renumber re spondent No. 5 as respondent No. 4 during the course of the day.

(2.) SARJU Prasad Shukla, the detenue petitioner, has invoked our extraordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India, with the prayer to issue a appropriate writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to pro duce the corpus before this Court and re lease him forthwith by quashing the im pugned detention order dated 5.12.2008 passed by District Magistrate, Basti, which order has been' approved by Secretary (Home), Confidential, U.P. Government, Lucknow (Annexures-1 and 3-A to this Habeas Corpus Petition).

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that looking to the counter affi davit filed by Smt. L.P. Srivastava, on be half of the Union of India, especially para graphs 5 and 6 thereof it is well perceptible that there is absolutely no explanation for the delay occasioned in considering the representation of the detenu by the Union of India. To shorten the contention, we reproduce paragraphs 5, and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by Union of India below: - 5. The allegations made in paras No. 5, 7, 23, 30, 33 and ground G of para 37 of the petition are denied as being incorrect. It is stated that a representation dated 10.12.2008 from the detenu along with the parawise comments of the detain ing authority was received by the Central Government in the con cerned Desk of Ministry of Home Affairs on 30.12.2008 through State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter No. 84/2/188/08-CX-5 dated 16.12.2008.