JUDGMENT 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 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, Under Section 379 I.P.C., 34 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C., 36 of 2005, Under Section 379/411 I.P.C., 57 of 2005, Under Section 2/3 Gangsters Act, 67 of 2005, Under Section 379/411 I.P.C., 189 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C. and 213 of 2005, Under Section 379 I.P.C..
3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.
4. 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.
5. 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 oh 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.
6. 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.
7. However, the representation 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:
6. The representation was 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.D.(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.
8. 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 only about 20 kilometers. The interval between 28.9.2005 to 3.10.2005 goes by default by plausible explanation.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.