# (In Jail) v. Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 723
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-03-01
- **Bench:** M.C. Jain, V.D. Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-jail-v-superintendent-district-jail-ghaziabad-and-others-40643
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ of
Habeas Corpus-detention-on account of
involvement of cutting of electric wireon 21.5.05-representation made-7.9.05detaining
authority
through
Special
messenger on 27.09.05 sent to ministry
of Home Affairs-distence of the seat of
Central Government about 20 Km. For
interval between 28.9.05 to 3.10.05-No
plausible
explanation-held-vitiate
the
detention order.

Held: Para 6 & 7

It spills beyond comprehension that the
representation sent by the detaining
authority through special messenger on
27.9.2005 could take seven days in
reaching the concerned desk in the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, there
is
no
explanation
as
to
how
the
representation was dealt with on two
days, i.e., 4th and 5th October, 2005.
When
the
representation
from
the
District
Magistrate,
Noida
through
special messenger could be received by
the State Government at Lucknow on
28.9.2005, it would have definitely been
delivered in the Central Government
latest by 28th September 2005. The
distance from Gautam Budh Nagar to the
seat of Central Government was also
about
20
kilometers.
The
interval
between 28.9.2005 to 3.10.2005 goes by
default by plausible explanation.

The delay was unreasonable with no
explanation. Unexplained delay on the
part of the Central Government in
dealing with the representation of the
detenu with all promptitude vitiates the
detention order.

## Text

2 All] Shakeel V. Superintendent District Jail, Ghaziabad and others
723
tenureholders. Upon the death of a
Mahant or Sarbakar no question of
mutation or succession to the right of the
tenureholder
arise.
In
my
opinion,
therefore, the dispute as to who is the
Mahant or Sarbakar of a Match cannot be
decided by the Consolidation authorities
and is totally beyond their jurisdiction."

10. In view of the discussions made
above, the impugned order was rightly
passed in accordance with law. Impugned
order does not suffer from any error of
law. Writ petition lacks merit and is
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE V.D. CHATURVEDI, J.

Shakeel

...Petitioner (In Jail)
Versus
Superintendent, District Jail, Ghaziabad
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.S. Misra
Sri C.K. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Durga Prasad Srivastava
Sri K.C. Sinha
Sri R.K. Shukla
Sri Arvind Tripathi

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ of
Habeas Corpus-detention-on account of
involvement of cutting of electric wireon 21.5.05-representation made-7.9.05detaining
authority
through
Special
messenger on 27.09.05 sent to ministry
of Home Affairs-distence of the seat of
Central Government about 20 Km. For
interval between 28.9.05 to 3.10.05-No
plausible
explanation-held-vitiate
the
detention order.

Held: Para 6 & 7

It spills beyond comprehension that the
representation sent by the detaining
authority through special messenger on
27.9.2005 could take seven days in
reaching the concerned desk in the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, there
is
no
explanation
as
to
how
the
representation was dealt with on two
days, i.e., 4th and 5th October, 2005.
When
the
representation
from
the
District
Magistrate,
Noida
through
special messenger could be received by
the State Government at Lucknow on
28.9.2005, it would have definitely been
delivered in the Central Government
latest by 28th September 2005. The
distance from Gautam Budh Nagar to the
seat of Central Government was also
about
20
kilometers.
The
interval
between 28.9.2005 to 3.10.2005 goes by
default by plausible explanation.

The delay was unreasonable with no
explanation. Unexplained delay on the
part of the Central Government in
dealing with the representation of the
detenu with all promptitude vitiates the
detention order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
detention order dated 31.8.2005, passed
by respondent no. 2, District Magistrate,
Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 3 (2)
of the National Security Act 1980 and his
continued detention thereunder.

2. The grounds of detention are
contained in Annexure-2 to the writ
petition. The genesis was the arrest of the
petitioner on 21.5.2005 by the police
party when he was allegedly engaged with
his associates in cutting electricity wire at
about 11 P.M. A case crime no. 36 of
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
2005 under section 379/411 I.P.C., P.S.
Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar was
registered against him. He was allegedly
found to be involved in several other
crimes, i.e. Crime No.s 30 of 2005, u/s379
I.P.C., 34 of 2005, u/s 379 I.P.C., 36 of
2005, u/s379/411 I.P.C., 57 of 2005,
u/s2/3 Gangsters Act, 67 of 2005,
u/s379/411 I.P.C., 189 of 2005, u/s 379
I.P.C. and 213 of 2005, u/s 379 I.P.C..

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have
been exchanged.

3. We have heard Shri D.S. Misra
for the Petitioner, Shri Arvind Tripathi
A.G.A. and Shri D.P. Srivastava, counsel
for Union of India-respondent no. 4.

It has first been argued for the
petitioner that there was unexplained
delay in deciding his representation by the
Central Government and it vitiates his
continued detention under the impugned
detention order. We have examined the
record in this behalf. As per the counter
affidavit of the District Magistrate,
namely, Sri Santosh Kumar Yadav,
District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar,
the representation dated 7.9.2005 had
actually been signed by the petitioner and
given to jail authorities on 19.9.2005. On
being received through jail authorities, the
police report was called for on 20.9.2005
for preparation of parawise comments.
The concerned Station officer submitted
his report to the Superintendent of Police
on 23.9.2005 and the S.P. forwarded the
same to the office of the District
Magistrate on 24.9.2005. There was
holiday on 25.9.2005, being Sunday.
Thereafter, parawise comments were
prepared and the representation along
with the comments was sent to the State
Government
as
well
as
Central
Government on 27.9.2005 through special
messenger. It is apparent that the
representation of the petitioner was
continuously dealt with by the detaining
authority and there was no delay on his
part.

4. The counter affidavit of Shri Babu
Lal, Under Secretary, Government of U.P.
reveals that the representation of the
detenu was received in concerned section
of the State Government on 28.9.2005.
The concerned section of the State
Government examined the representation
and submitted a detailed report on
29.9.2005. The Under Secretary examined
it on 30.9.2005 and the Special Secretary
examined it on 3.10.2005 as 1st and 2nd
October 2005 were holidays on account of
Saturday and Sunday. The Secretary
submitted the representation to higher
authorities for final orders on 3.10.2005
and within four days, the decision was
taken by the State Government on
7.10.2005 with all expedition. After due
consideration, the said representation was
rejected on 7.10.2005. So, there was no
delay on the part of State Government
either.

5.

However,
the
presentation
received a rough deal with the Central
Government. It would be recalled that as
per the counter affidavit of the District
Magistrate, the representation was sent to
the Central Government also through
special messenger on 27.9.2005, which
was received by the Central Government
in the concerned desk in the Ministry of
Home Affairs on 4.10.2005. In para 6 of
the counter affidavit filed by Smt. Rita
Dogra
on
behalf
of
the
Central
Government, it has been stated thus:
2 All] Azeem V. State of U.P. and another
725

"6.
The
representation
was
immediately processed for consideration
and the case of the detenu was put up
before the Under Secretary, Ministry of
Home Affairs on 06.10.2005. The Under
Secretary carefully considered the case
and put up the same before the OSD (S)
on 06.10.2005. The O.S.C. (S) carefully
considered the same and with his
comments put up the same before the
Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
on 06.10.2005. The Joint Secretary
carefully
considered
the
case
and
forwarded the same to the Special
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on
07.10.2005.
The
Special
Secretary
considered the case and forwarded the
same before the Union Home Secretary
on
13.10.2005.
The
Union
Home
Secretary (who has been delegated
powers by the Union Home Minister to
decide such cases) considered the case of
the detenu and rejected the representation
of the detenu on 18.10.2005."

6. It spills beyond comprehension
that the representation sent by the
detaining
authority
through
special
messenger on 27.9.2005 could take seven
days in reaching the concerned desk in the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Further, there
is no explanation as to how the
representation was dealt with on two
days, i.e., 4th and 5th October, 2005. When
the representation from the District
Magistrate,
Noida
through
special
messenger could be received by the State
Government at Lucknow on 28.9.2005, it
would have definitely been delivered in
the Central Government latest by 28th
September 2005. The distance from
Gautam Budh Nagar to the seat of Central
Government
was
also
about
20
kilometers.
The
interval
between
28.9.2005 to 3.10.2005 goes by default by
plausible explanation.

7. The delay was unreasonable with
no explanation. Unexplained delay on the
part of the Central Government in dealing
with the representation of the detenu with
all promptitude vitiates the detention
order.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also argued that all relevant materials, i.e.,
bail applications/bail orders of related
case crimes had not been sent for
consideration
before
the
detaining
authority and as such the detention order
suffers from the vice of non-application of
mind de hors of relevant material. It is not
necessary to dilate on this aspect of the
matter for the reason that the continued
detention of the petitioner is rendered
illegal because of unexplained delay in
decision of his representation by the
Central Government as stated above.

9. In net conclusion, we allow this
writ petition. The continued detention of
the petitioner is rendered illegal. We
direct that the petitioner shall be set at
liberty forthwith if not wanted in any
other connection.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE K.N. SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. Transfer Application No.
161 of 2006

Azeem

...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party