Point of Law: Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

(1) Questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 06.09.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Unnao (respondent no.3), directing detention of Kanahaiya Awasthi (detenue/petitioner herein) in exercise of its power under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 as well as the order dated 14.09.2020 passed by the Under Secretary, Home (Confidential) Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh (respondent no.2), confirming the order of detention dated 06.09.2020, petitioner/detenue Kanahaiya Awasthi has preferred the instant Habeas Corpus petition through his next friend and sister-in-law Shivangi Awasthi.

(2) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner/detenue impelling the third respondent (District Magistrate, Unnao) to clamp the impugned detention order against him are contained in grounds of detention, according to which, on 19.06.2020 at 3:30 p.m., one Subham Mani Tripathi, who was a journalist by profession and the district correspondent of a news daily ‘Kampumali’ published from Unnao, was murdered by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. In this regard, brother of deceased, namely, Rishabh Mani Tripathi, lodged an F.I.R. on 19.06.2020, which was registered as case crime no. 188 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/34, 120B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, at Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested and detained in judicial custody for the aforesaid incident. While the detenue was in jail w.e.f. 30.06.2020, the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao had forwarded a dossier to the Superintendent of Police, Unnao, who, in turn, forwarded the same to the District Magistrate, Unnao recommending that the detention of the detenue may be ordered under the appropriate provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “N.S.A.”). The aforesaid Sponsoring Authority, while recommending to detain the detenue under N.S.A., has stated the facts that the detenue has also been involved in six other criminal cases and the detenue has tried to bail out in the aforesaid cases and there is liklihood that if the detenue be released on bail, he may indulge in other criminal activities. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Unnao, on considering the recommendation of the sponsoring authority, invoked the provisions of Section 3(2) of the N.S.A. and passed the order of detention dated 06.09.2020, directing to detain the detenue/petitioner under the N.S.A., which is impugned in the instant habeas corpus petition.

(3) It transpires from the record that the detention order along with the grounds of detention dated 06.09.2020 and other relevant document(s) was served upon the petitioner/detenu on 06.09.2020 itself. On 14.09.2020, the State Government approved the order of detention dated 06.09.2020 and the same was also served upon the petitioner/detenue on 14.09.2020. Thereafter, the detenue/petitioner had filed his representation dated 22.09.2020 to the Uttar Pradesh Advisory Board (Detention), Lucknow, Secretary (Home), Union of India, North Block, New Delhi as well as the Secretary, Department of Home, State of U.P. The said representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2020 was forwarded by the Superintendent, District Jail, Unnao to the District Magistrate, Unnao vide letter dated 22.09.2020. Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Unnao vide letter dated 29.09.2020, forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the State Government (respondent no.2), Central Government (respondent no.1). The State Government has received the representation of the petitioner on 30.09.2020, whereas the Union of India (respondent no.1) has received the petitioner’s representation dated 22.09.2020 on 05.10.2020.

(4) After due consideration, the State Government had rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 22.09.2020 on 06.10.2020 and information in this regard was also communicated to the pet