INTEZAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Intezar challenging his detention under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and for seeking his release from detention under the above Act.

(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that on 21.6.08 Case Crime No. 26 of 2008 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur against the petitioner and other co-accused persons under Sections 3/5/8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. THEre was tension in the village due to cow slaughtering committed by the petitioner and his colleagues and public order was disturbed. Hence, S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur submitted a report for his detention under the National Security Act through proper channel to the District Magistrate, Saharanpur and the District Magistrate being satisfied with this report and the recommendations of the concerned authorities on that report passed an order on 30.6.08 for his detention under Section 3 (2) of the above Act. THE petitioner submitted his representations against that order but they were rejected. THEn he filed this petition.

(3.) THE only explanation given in para 5 of the counter-affidavit regarding this delay is that after decision of the Home Secretary on the representation on 22.7.08, the file was received back in the concerned section on 28.7.08. We are unable to understand as to how this delay of six days was caused in sending the file from the office of the Home Secretary to the concerned section in the Home Ministry dealing with the representations of habeas corpus. It is to be seen that after receipt of the file in concerned section of the Ministry, the entire proceedings were completed within two days from 21.7.08 to 22.7.08 only from the stage of the Under Secretary to the stage of Union Home Secretary and after rejection of the representation, the file took six days time in reaching back in the concerned section of the Under Secretary. THEre is no explanation for this unreasonable delay of six days in communication of the rejection order and so further continued detention of the petitioner stands vitiated on this ground.