# Mohd. Anees alias Guddu (In Jail) v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2004) 1 ILRA 38
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-13
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20304 of 2003
- **Bench:** S.K. Agarwal, Ghanshyam Dass
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-anees-alias-guddu-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40268
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226National Security Act-Section 8 & 14Detention
order
state
government
forwarded the representation to Central
Govt.-Central
Government
returned
without considering the same-Directed
to
State
Government
for
its
determination under Section 8 of the
Act-Contention raised-whether central
Govt. failed to discharge its obligation
under Section 14 of the Act.

Held: conduct of Central Government
resulted into miscarriage of Justice-it
was in cumbent upon the Government of
India to consider the representation and
to decide under section 14 of the ActPetition
Allowed-Detention
order
quashed.

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
38
the Naib Tehsildar can also not determine
the same.

4. Accordingly both the orders
passed by Prescribed Authority as well as
District Judge are upheld even though on
different grounds and writ petition is
dismissed.

5. As release application is pending
since 1984 hence it is directed that
Prescribed Authority must decide the said
case within six months from production of
certified copy of this order.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE GHANSHYAM DASS, J.

Habeas Corpus Petition No. 20304 of 2003

Mohd. Anees alias Guddu
...Petitioner
 (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.K. Bajpai
Sri U.N. Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh, S.S.C.
Sri J. Lal, A.S.C.
Sri K.S. Yadav
Sri A.K. Tripathi, A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India-Article
226National Security Act-Section 8 & 14Detention
order
state
government
forwarded the representation to Central
Govt.-Central
Government
returned
without considering the same-Directed
to
State
Government
for
its
determination under Section 8 of the
Act-Contention raised-whether central
Govt. failed to discharge its obligation
under Section 14 of the Act.

Held: conduct of Central Government
resulted into miscarriage of Justice-it
was in cumbent upon the Government of
India to consider the representation and
to decide under section 14 of the ActPetition
Allowed-Detention
order
quashed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Anil Kumar
Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner,
on behalf of the State Sri A.K. Tripathi,
learned A.G.A. and Sri K.S. Yadav,
learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The sole question that was raised
before us by the petitioner in this petition
for
our
consideration
is
that
the
representation, duly forwarded by the
Government of Uttar Pradesh with a
covering letter, was returned by the
Central Government without considering
the same to the State Government for its
determination under Section 8 of National
Security Act (hereinafter referred to as
'Act'). The representation was also sent to
the Central Government by the District
Magistrate, Allahabad. The contention,
therefore, is that the central government
had failed to discharge its obligation as
enjoined upon it by Section 14 of the Act.
We have applied ourselves appropriately
to the issue at hand. In our opinion the
contention has sufficient force. The
detenue had supplied 7 copies of his
representation to the Superintendent of
Jail as accepted by him in his counter
affidavit in paragraph 6. A copy of the
representation is annexed alongwith the
petition
as
annexure-2.
The
representation was handed over to the
Superintendent on 12.9.2002. According
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Mohd. Anees alias Guddu V. State of U.P. and others
39
to this paragraph it was addressed to the
President of India, Secretary (Home),
Central
Government,
New
Delhi,
Governor
of
the
State,
Chairman,
Advisory Board, Chief Minister and the
District Magistrate, Allahabad. At Serial.
No. 2 at the foot of the representation
there is a mention of this fact. It is clear
that the petitioner had the intention to
address one of his representation to the
Secretary (Home Affairs), Government of
India. The District Magistrate in his
counter affidavit in paragraph 5 had also
admitted this fact that he had forwarded
the representation of the detenue to the
Central Government on the same day i.e.
13.9.2002 through speed post. In the
counter affidavit filed by Sri C.P. Singh,
Dy. Secretary (Home & Confidential),
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow
in
paragraph 3 it has been alleged that the
representation of the petitioner was
forwarded to the central government by a
letter dated 24.9.2002. The Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi, vide its letter
dated 25.9.2002 promptly returned the
said
representation
to
the
State
Government with a remark that 'the
representation of the petitioner was not
addressed to the Central Government and
so the representation be disposed of by
the State in accordance with the provision
of Section 8 of the Act.' From paragraph
5 of the counter affidavit of this officer, it
is further made available to us that this
representation forwarded to the central
government
was
received
by
the
Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New
Delhi on 10.9.2002 i.e. within 7 days
from the date of approval by the State
Government as required under Section 3
(5) of the said Act.

3. In view of abovesaid facts and
circumstances and the fact that the
representation endorsed by the petitioner
clearly indicated his desire for his
representation to be considered by the
central government as well. It is clearly
explicit from Sl. No. 2 at page 32 of the
representation as appended to this writ
petition. From these facts it is clearly
over-flowing that the authority who
directed the return of the representation to
the State Government for its decision
under Section 8 of the Act had completely
shut his eyes to this part of the
representation. Had any application of
mind being made by the authority
concerned at the central government's
end, probably this unholy mistake may
not have occurred. This shows total lapse
of application of mind on the part of the
official at the Ministry of Home,
Government of India who entertained the
same. The abovesaid conduct that has
resulted into miscarriage of justice so far
as the petitioner is concerned. It was
incumbent upon the government of India
to consider the representation forwarded
by any detenue or by the state government
on his behalf and decide the same as
required under Section 14 of the Act.
Thus, the legal obligation was not
discharged by the central government in
the case of this detenue. There is no
averment in the Union Home Ministry's
counter
affidavit
whether
the
representation forwarded to it by the
District Magistrate was disposed of or
not. This is yet another anomaly.

4. It is needless to remind that any
obligation enjoined by any law has to be
discharged in true manner as prescribed.
There must not be adhered an approach or
attitude which may give an exposure to
cursoriness or wreaklessness of the
authority or the government. Such an
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004
40
approach or attitude is to be seriously
deprecated.

5. In view of the abovesaid facts and
circumstances,
in
our
opinion,
this
petition deserves to be allowed. The
petition is accordingly allowed and his
continued detention under the said Act is
hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
released forthwith, if he is not otherwise
detained in any other offence.

6. A copy of this order shall be sent
immediately to the Secretary (Internal
Security Home Affairs), State of U.P. and
also to Union of India.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19604 of 1989

Dhaneshwar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.S. Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Consolidation of India Art. 226 Read
with U.P.C.H. Act 1962 Sec. 9(9) (2)
Compromise whether the writ Court can
decide the petition on the basis of
Compromise
Held
No.
Parties
to
approach
before
the
consolidation
authorities along with certified copy of
compromise
application
after
due
verification. The effective line order can
be passed only by the writ court detail
guidalines issued in is regard.
Held: Para 6

Now the question is that as Apex Court
and this court has ruled that dispute
between the parties can be decided on
the basis of compromise in the writ
petition, if, Parties intended to settle
their dispute then what course is to be
adopted. On a careful consideration of all
the
practical
aspects
by
taking
precaution to rule out any wrong in the
exercise, this Court Is of the view that
following procedure should be adopted
for giving effect to the intention of the
parties for settling their disputes
Case Law:
2002 (93) R.D. 468
J.T. 2001 (6) S.C. 173
2002 (93) R.D. 430

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioners against the orders
passed by the Consolidation Authorities
in a proceeding under section 9-A (2) of
U.P.C.H. Act.

2. At the time of hearing of the writ
petitioner, Learned counsel appearing -for
both parties, submitted before this Court
that the parties have filed a compromise
and therefore, the writ petition may be
decided In terms of compromise.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the Court
has to examine that what order is to be
passed on the prayer as made by learned
counsel for the parties.

4. Learned counsel for the parties, on
the strength of the decision given by this
Court in the case of Surendra Nath Raid
Vs. Prahlad Singh 2002 (93) RD.468
and also the decision given by the Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Salika
Businessmen's Association Vs. Howrah
Municipal Corporation JT 2001 (6) SC