Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—The petitioner Pankaj Singh has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) under an order of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur (for short the “Detaining Authority”) dated 7.11.2016. The order dated 7.11.2016 shall hereinafter be referred to as the “detention order”.

2. The representation made by the petitioner to the Detaining Authority has been rejected by an order dated 21.11.2016 on ground that by the time the the petitioner’s representation was received by the District Magistrate, that is to say, on 19.11.2016 the State Government had already rejected the representation by an order dated 15.11.2016. The Central Government rejected the petitioner’s representation by an order that was communicated to the detenu-petitioner through the Superintendent, District Jail, Jaunpur by a wireless message dated 9.12.2016. The case of the petitioner was reviewed by the Advisory Board under Section 12(1) of the Act who affirmed the detention order. The decision of the Advisory Board was communicated to the petitioner under the signature of the Under Secretary, Home (Confidential Department), Government of U.P. by a radiogram dated 28.12.2016 through the Superintendent, District Jail, Jaunpur.

3. This petition which in essence is a writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus to restore the petitioner to his liberty that stands taken away by virtue of the detention order, seeks the following material reliefs:

“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned detention order dated 7.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

II. To issue any other writ, order or directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to release the petitioner forthwith detained in pursuance to detention order dated 7.11.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaunpur under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.”

4. Before we venture to judge the validity of the petitioner’s detention, we are constrained to say that we are not entirely at peace with the frame of the petition, so far as as the reliefs claimed are concerned. To our mind the second relief would suffice to deal with the petitioner’s claim against his detention under the Act. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is generally sought and must be sought wherever illegal detention of a person, whether by or under an order of the executive authority of the State is questioned or even by or at the behest of a private person. A writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is a wholesome remedy available to a person against illegal detention complained of whether it by the State or by a private person. No other relief or writ, order or direction of a different nature seeking to quash the order by or under the authority of which detention is made, in our opinion, is required to be sought.

5. In fact, it is important to note that the distinction between a petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus and a writ petition seeking any other writ, order or direction becomes more than a matter of mere form as far as this Court is concerned because this Court while framing the rules of the Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India consciously chose to place petitions seeking writs, orders or directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus and petitions seeking writs other than Habeas Corpus, though both are sought under Article 226 of the Constitution, in two distinct and separate chapters of the rules of the Court, each providing for different rules of procedure, regulation, form and process. While petitions seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus are dealt with under Chapter-XXI of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, all petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution other than those seek