JUDGMENT

SEN, J. :— The State Government of Uttar Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated October 25, 1983 by which the High Court issued a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad dated November 6, 1982 for the detention of, the respondent under sub-see. (3) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on being satisfied that his detention was necessary "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

2. It appears that the respondent is alleged to have committed an offence of murder punishable. under S. 302 and of causing disappearance of evidence punishable under S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with the communal riots that occurred in the Moradabad city. On November 6. 1982, the District Magistrate, Moradabad passed the impugned order of detention but it could not be served on the respondent as he was absconding. As required under sub-sec. (4) of S. 3, the District Magistrate forthwith made a report of the fact to the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that he had passed an order for the detention of the respondent under sub-sec. (3) of S. 3 of the Act, together with the grounds on which the order had been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, had a bearing on the matter. The State Government received the order of detention on November 8, 1982 and approved of the same on November 11, 1982 under sub-see. (5) of S. 3, and as required thereunder, forwarded a report to the Central Government on the next day i.e. on November 12, 1982. The respondent surrendered to the police on May 24, 1983 and the impugned order of detention was served on him in District Jail, Moradabad on June 1, 1983 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on June 2, 1983.

3. The respondent made a representation dated June 18, 1983 through the Superintendent, District Jail, Moradabad, and he immediately forwarded the same to the District Magistrate. On June 20, 1983 the District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the Advisory Board and the same was received by the Advisory Board on June 21, 1983. The State Government had in the meanwhile on June 13, 1983 made a reference to the Advisory Board under S. 10 of the Act i.e. within three weeks from the date of detention together with the order of detention, and the grounds therefor, for its opinion. On June 23, 1983 the representation of the respondent forwarded by the District Magistrate together with his comments was examined by the Joint Secretary, Home Department. The file was placed before the Home Secretary on June 27, 1983 who placed it before the Chief Minister with his comments. The Chief Minister took two days to study the file and ultimately passed an order rejecting the representation on June 30, 1983. On July 2, 1983 the State, Government forwarded the representation made by the respondent together with its comments to the Government of India and the Central Government rejected the same on July 19, 1983.

4. On July 5, 1983 the respondent through his counsel D. S. Misra simultaneously addressed two representations for revocation of his detention under Section 14 of the Act, one addressed to the Prime Minister of India and the other to the State Government. It appears that the representation made to the Central Government addressed in the name of the Prime Minister was received in the Prime Ministers Secretariat on July 7, 1983 and the grievance of the respondent was that the Central Government had not dealt with his application for revocation of the order of detention under Section 14 even now.

5. In his counter-affidavit by one M. L. Miglani, Desk Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs. New Delhi, it was stated that the Central Government had fully discharged its functions by expeditiously taking a decision on the earlier representation directly addressed by the re