Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 615 (ALL)

Irfan alias Gama v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1985-05-23

I.P.SINGH, R.P.SHUKLA

body1985
JUDGMENT I.P. Singh, J. - Irfan alias Gama petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the detention order dated 31.8.1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. We have heard the learned counsel from both sides and are of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of on a short point to be discussed presently. For this reason, we are not entering into the detailed facts and other circumstances involved or pleaded in the petition. Learned Counsel for the detenu has pointed out that his representation against the detention order was handed over to the Superintendent of Jail, Chhapra (Bihar) on 19.9.1984. The grievance is that this representation was never placed before the Advisory Board and the mandatory provisions of Section 10 of the Act were violated rendering the detention order illegal. 3. The counter-Affidavits filed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur as well as filed on behalf of the State Government make it clear that the said representation was never placed before the Advisory Board. We, are, therefore, of the opinion that this was a clear violation of Section 10 of the Act. The detention order in question Is rendered invalid. There is no justification for the continued detention of the detenu. 4. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. We direct the respondents not to detain Irfan alias Gama (detenu) any more in pursuance of the impugned detention order dated 31.8.1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Gorakhpur. 5. It is made clear that the order, which is passed by us to-day will not entitle the detenu to be released physically if he could be detained in pursuance of any other lawful order or Is wanted otherwise in any other matter.