LALLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition re lates to a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28-5-1998, passed by the Dis trict Magistrate, Sultanpur under sub-sec tion (3) of Section 3 of National Security Act, 1980, contained in Annexure No. 1 of the writ petition. Another prayer is in the nature of a writ of Habeas Corpus for im mediate release of the petitioner declaring his detention as illegal.

(2.) FACTUAL narration as a background for this writ petition is that the petitioner was detained on 28-5- 1998 in the District Jail, Sultanpur, under the orders of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, contained in Annexure No. 1 of this writ petition, passed under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order dated 28-5-1998 was (sic) to the detenu petitioner alongwith the grounds of detention and copies of the documents by the Superin tendent of Police; District Sultanpur on 28-5-1998. The petitioner was challaned by the police of P. S. Kamrouli, District Sultanpur on 1-3-1998 in Crime No. 43 of 1998, under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and in Crime No. 31 of 1998, under Sec tions 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, I. P. C. of the same Police Station and since then the petitioner had been in judicial custody. The detention order, according to the con tention, was passed without applying mind by the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. The ground for detention was that the petitioner had moved bail application in the Sessions Court, District Sultanpur whereas the petitioner had not moved any such bail application in the said Court. The detaining authority had no material before it for consideration of the detention under National Security Act. The grounds of detention showed that there were three criminal cases and one such case related to the year 1994 and no one was named as accused and the petitioner was granted bail from the Sessions Court. The other two cases were instituted by the police being complainant and there were no inde pendent witnesses in support of the allega tions. The detaining authority considered these three cases as criminal history of the applicant for detaining in jail but no papers relating to case Crime No. 95 of 1994 were supplied to the petitioner to prepare an effective representation. The petitioner's representation dated 9-6-1998 has not been decided at an early date by the Union of India as- well-as State of U. P. and there was no proper explanation for the delay. Thus the detention of the petitioner was illegal as there was no com pliance of Section 3 (4) and (5) of the Na tional Security Act. Therefore, the writ petition was moved with the aforesaid prayer for quashing the detention order.

(3.) THE facts noted above in the peti tion and the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents No. 2 and 3, showed that the petitioner moved the representation on 9-6-1998 relating to his detention order dated 28-5-1998. It was rejected by the State Government on 27-6-1998 and by the Central Government on 14-8-1998. THE District Magistrate, Sultanpur for warded the representation dated 9-6-1998 to the State Government on 11-6- 1998 and sent parawise comments on 17-6-1998. Parawise comments were sent after 8 days of presentation of the representation to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur. THE State Government received repre sentation of the petitioner on 12-6-1998 but it was rejected on 27-6-1998. THE Central Government rejected this repre sentation on 14-8-1998. Obviously at both Governments' level there had been delay of more than 7 days to dispose of the representation of the petitioner.