on numberember 6 1982 the district magistrate moradabad passed the impugned order of detention but it companyld number be served on the respondent as he was absconding.
misra simultaneously addressed two representations for revocation of his detention under s. 14 of the act one addressed to the prime minister of india and the other to the state government.
the chief minister took two days to study the file and ultimately passed an order rejecting the representation on june 30 1983.
from the judgment and order dated 25 10 1983 of the allahabad high companyrt in habeas companypus wp.
it appears that the respondent is alleged to have committed an offence of murder punishable under s. 302 and of causing disappearance of evidence punishable under s. 201 of the indian penal companye 1860 in companynection with the communal riots that occurred in the moradabad city.
on june 20 1983 the district magistrate forwarded the representation to the advisory board and the same was received by the advisory board on june 21 1983.
in his companynter affidavit by one m.l.
the state government had in the meanwhile on june 131983 made a reference to the advisory board under s. 10 of the act i.e. within three weeks from the date of detention together with the order of detention and the grounds therefore for its opinion.
on july 5 1983 the respondent through his companynsel d.s.
the respondent made a representation dated june 18 1983 through the superintendent district jail moradabad and he immediately forwarded the same to the district magistrate.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 57 of 1984.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sen j. the state government of uttar pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the allahabad high companyrt dated october 25 1983 by which the high companyrt issued a writ in the nature of habeas corpus quashing an order of detention passed by the district magistrate moradabad dated numberember 6 1982 for the detention of the respondent under sub s. 3 of s. 3 of the national security act 1980 on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
the state government received the order of detention on numberember 8 1982 and approved of the same on numberember 11 1982 under sub s. 5 of s. 3 and as required thereunder forwarded a report to the central government on the next day i.e. on numberember 12 1982.
manjo swarup and dalveer bhandari for the appellant.
qamaruddin rizwan a. hafiez and desh raj for the respondent.
the respondent surrendered to the police on may 24 1983 and the impugned order of detention was served on him in district jail moradabad on june 1 1983 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on june 2 1983.
miglani desk officer ministry of home affairs new delhi it was stated that the central government had fully discharged its functions by expeditiously taking a decision on the earlier representation directly ad dressed by the respondent and it was under numberstatutory obligation to companysider the subsequent representation for revocation addressed by the respondent through his companynsel to the prime minister.
number 8420 of 1983.
it appears that the representation made to the central government addressed in the name of the prime minister was received in the prime minister secretariat on july 7 1983 and the grievance of the respondent was that the central government had number dealt with his application for revocation of the order of detention under s. 14 even number.
on july 2 1983 the state government forwarded the representation made by the respondent together with its companyments to the government of india and the central government rejected the same on july 19 1983.
the file was placed before the home secretary on june 27 1983 who placed it before the chief minister with his companyments.
as required under sub s. 4 of s. 3 the district magistrate forthwith made a report of the fact to the state government of uttar pradesh that he had passed an order for the detention of the respondent under sub s. 3 of s. 3 of the act together with the grounds on which the order had been made and such other particulars as in his opinion had a bearing on the matter.
on june 23 1983 the representation of the respondent forwarded by the district magistrate together with his companyments was examined by the joint secretary home department.
