Point of Law: Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and vitiates detention order.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. The Court has convened through video conferencing.

2. Heard Shri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and learned A.S.G. Senior Advocate Shri S.B. Pandey assisted by Shri Varun Pandey learned counsel for the Union of India.

3. The instant petition for habeas corpus has been preferred by the petitioner assailing his detention since 03.07.2020 in pursuance of the detention order passed by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

4. The Court had required the State as well as the Union of India to file their counter-affidavits and in pursuance thereof the State as well as the Union of India have filed their respective counter-affidavits. The Union of India has also filed a supplementary counter-affidavit, to which the petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit.

5. From the record, it appears that an incident had taken place on 20.02.2020 in pursuance whereof a First Information Report was also lodged bearing Case Crime No. 74 of 2020 under Sections 302, 394, 216-A, 120-B/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act relating to Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

6. The alleged incident as described is that on 20.02.2020, four men who had covered their faces with mask and were wearing helmet at around 1.30 P.M. entered the shop of a wholesale stockist of Kamlapasand and Supari situate in the busy market area of Yayaganj, having fire arms with them and forcibly took away two packets, one carrying cash and the other having keys to a cupboard and when an employee of the firm Subhash Chandra Gupta resisted, they fired at him and fled from the scene on two motorcycles. The said employee who was shot at, died during his treatment.

7. The State Government considering the facts and circumstances and the material before it approved the detention order passed by the detaining authority under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order dated 03.07.2020 was served on the petitioner in jail through Superintendent District Jail, Lucknow-respondent no. 1. Subsequently, after the detention order was approved from the Advisory Board Committee, it was further extended for another period of three months i.e. six months from the date of initial detention and later the same was further extended.

8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has instituted the above petition for habeas corpus challenging the detention order to be illegal and seeks his released forthwith.

9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had moved a representation dated 13.07.2020 for seeking revocation of his detention through respondent No. 1 Superintendent, District Jail, Lucknow which was addressed to the District Magistrate. The said representation was received by the respondent no. 1 on 15.07.2020 and the same was rejected by the State Government on 28.07.2020. The petitioner has brought the representation dated 13.07.2020 on record as annexure no. 12. The rejection order passed by the State Government dated 28th of July, 2020 has been brought on record as annexure no. 13.

10. The petitioner thereafter preferred another representation addressed to the Advisory Board Committee, the Central Government as well as the State Government dated 21st July, 2020. It is the specific case of the petitioner as pleaded in paragraph-40 of the writ petition that despite the representation dated 21.07.2020 having been served on the Authorities yet the same has not been decided with expedition which has rendered the detention of the petitioner bad in the eyes of law, hence the petition be allowed.

11. Learned A.G.A. Shri S.P. Singh while refuting the aforesaid submissions has urged that the petitioner is involved in commission of a heinous crime. It is only after considering the dossier prepared relating to the petitioner, a co