Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—The petitioner Imran has been detained by an order dated 28.5.2017 passed under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Deoria on ground that it is necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The aforesaid order is annexed as Annexure 7 to the petition and is hereinafter referred to as ‘Detention Order’. The Detention Order is supported by grounds of detention annexed as Annexure 8 to the petition that furnish details of those facts, circumstances and evidence that have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Deoria to form his subjective satisfaction required under the statute. The grounds also undertake and inform of the detenue of all his rights to represent against the Detention Order including the authorities to whom he could represent, the time within which he could do so and the provisions of the National Security Act, 1980, for short the Act, which entitle the detenu to represent. The grounds of detention in support the detention order are also dated 28.5.2017 and have been duly served upon the petitioner alongwith the report of the sponsoring authority (the police) as also other documents that have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, Deoria who is hereinafter referred to as the ‘Detaining Authority’.

2. The petitioner has laid challenge to his detention pursuant to the Detention Order through the instant habeas corpus writ petition that was filed on 10.8.2017. The writ petition came up for admission on 16.8.2017 when the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file a supplementary-affidavit. The following order was passed by this Court on that day:

“Mr. Gyan Prakash Asthana, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No. 1-Union of India.

As prayed by Mr. Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner, list the matter in the next cause list to enable him to file supplementary-affidavit.”

3. A supplementary-affidavit sworn on 17.8.2017 by one Abdul Rahman Khan was filed in the office regarding which an office report dated 22.8.2017 was recorded. The petition came up for admission on 23.8.2017 alongwith supplementary-affidavit when the following order was made:

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the opposite parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed supplementary-affidavit today which is taken on record.

In paragraph 6 of the supplementary-affidavit, it has been stated as follows :

“6. That under Secretary Home (Confidential Department Government of Uttar Pradesh had sent a radiogram/crash to the Superintendent District Jail Deoria and District Magistrate Deoria, on 19.7.2017 thereby informing them about the report of the advisory board having confirmed the detention order passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate Deoria dated 28.5.2017 and further the State Government had also confirmed the said detention order passed against the petitioner under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act. Photocopy of the radiogram dated 19.7.2017 issued by the under Secretary Home (Confidential) Department Government of Uttar Pradesh is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure S.A.1 to this affidavit.”

Respondents are granted six weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List thereafter.”

4. The order dated 23.8.2017 constitutes issue of a rule nisi requiring each of the respondents to show-cause against the petitioner’s detention by dint of the Detention order. The earliest of returns that came to be filed was one by the Union of India being a counter-affidavit sworn on 10.10.2017 by one Sri Rajesh Ranjan, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi that was formally signed by the learned Central Government Counsel on 24.10.20