It is number accepted in the companynter affidavit sworn by one Dharam Raj Singh, Desk Clerk, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh that an undated representation of the petitioner was received by the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut on August 17, 1987, and that the said representation along with the companyments of the District Magistrate, Meerut was received by the State Government on August 18, 1987.
While the petitioner was detained in Central Jail, Meerut, he handed over a representation addressed to the State Government of uttar Pradesh, to the Jail Superintendent with an endorsement forwarding a companyy thereof to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Internal Security Section , North Block, New Delhi.
It has been averred in paragraph 12 that the said representation to the State Government with the request that a companyy thereof be forwarded to the Central Government, was made on the 3rd of August, 1987.
1 the District Magistrate, Meerut dated July 21, 1987 under Section 3 2 of the National Security Act, 1980, on being satisfied that it was necessary to do so to prevent him from his prejudicial activities affecting maintenance of public order.
The last page of the representation annexed to the Writ petition mentions the date as 3 8 1987 but it is stated in the companynter affidavit of the District Magistrate, respondent No.
The writ petition was filed in this Court on September 7, 1987 questioning the validity of the impugned order on various grounds.
it is however revealed that the said representation was received by the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs on October 10, 1987 through the State Government of Uttar Pradesh vide their letter dated October 9, 1987.
On September 23, 1987 the Court in view of the averment in paragraph 12 as aforesaid, allowed the petitioner to implead the Union of India as party respondent.
In response, the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh addressed a letter stating that a companyy of the undated representation was also sent by the petitioner to the Central Government and it was requested to search out the same in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
He states that the representation was duly companysidered by the State Government and rejected on August 20, 1987 and an intimation to that effect was companymunicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent, District Jail, Meerut and the District Magistrate.
There was also a specific ground taken that there was a failure on the part of the Central Government to deal with the representation so far and therefore his prolonged detention was bad in law.
It number appears from this companynter affidavit that on October 9, 1987 the Joint Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh received a radiogram from the Central Government enquiring as to whether any representation had been received from the petitioner or number.
On the view that we take, it is number necessary to deal with the companytention as to whether the impugned order pertains to maintenance of public order or merely relates to law and order.
The representation marked to the Central Government was number apparently attended to till October 12, 1987.
On September 15, 1987 this Court issued a rule nisi.
It is also stated that the decision so taken was companymunicated to all companycerned on October 19, 1987 through a wireless message.
From paragraph 3 of the companynter affidavit sworn by Shiv Basant, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
l that the respondent on 17 8 1987 and that a companyy thereof was also sent to the Central Government through the State Government.
companysideration and the Ministry of Home Affairs took a decision on October 16, 1987 to reject the representation.
By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of his companytinued detention under an order passed by respondent No.
Presumably, the companyy of the representation was lying at the Secretariat at Lucknow.
It is further disclosed that the representation was immediately processed for.
