SARTAJ ALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. M. Quddusi,j: We have heard Sri Virendra Bhatia for the petitioners, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government Shri K. D. Nag and Sri H. B. Singh.

(2.) SINCE the petitions are knil together by reasons of common question of law being involved therein and also by reasons of facts being identical, these peti tions are grouped together and heard ac cordingly for convenient disposal by a common judgment.

(3.) SHRI Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that at the time of passing detention order, there was no material before the detaining authority to the effect that Smt. Jameela Begum put per thumb-impression due to any pres sure. She had also filed affidavits in the Court of learned Magistrate. Those ap plications and affidavits were moved much before the detention order was passed. The relevant materials/documents were not placed before the detaining authority and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was vitiated. SHRI K. D. Nath had filed counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union of India in which, it has been stated that the representations were not addressed to the Central Government. However, when the copy of the repre sentation was received by the Central Government in the concerned desk of Min istry of Home Affairs, the same were con sidered and rejected by the Central Govern ment within tour days excluding the hofidays. The representations were received on 28-7-1999 and they were rejected on 2-8-1999, 31-7-1999 and 1-8- 1999 were hofidays. Hence, the representations were decided by the Central Government without delay and information was sent through the quickest mode of communica tion viz. a crash wireless message of 3-8-1999 through the Home Secretary, Government of U. P. and Supdt. District Jail, Etah.