Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas corpus as stated therein.) P. Sathasivam, J. The petitioner, Chandra Prakash Gajurel, is a foreigner - Nepali National, who is now detained in Central Prison, Chennai under the National Security Act, 1980 (in short "N.S. Act") has filed the above petition to issue a writ of Habeas corpus calling for the records of the first respondent, Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order F) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9, connected with G.O.Ms.No.943 Public (Law & Order F) Department dated 19.09.2005 and quash the same and to produce him before this Court and set him at liberty. 2. According to the petitioner, he is a Teacher by profession and Politburo Member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). There was a widespread protest in Nepal against monarchy in 1989-90 and on the basis of an agreement between King Birendra and the political parties, the pro democracy movement was called off. After the introduction of the multi party system, the political parties including, Communist party of Nepal came into power. After the assassination of King Birendra, the multi party system was not acceptable to King Gyanedra and the entire democratic movement suffered a serious set back. There was widespread human rights violation and thousands of Nepalis were arrested or killed. Many of them who were in the forefront of the struggle for democracy simply "disappeared". 3. The petitioner was arrested on 21.08.2003, when he attempted to travel from Chennai Airport to London through British Airlines by furnishing false information to the Immigration authorities, Chennai that he was a British National by name Smith Mark Evelyn Digby, holding a British Passport. The charge sheet in C.C.No.736 of 2005 (Airport P.S.Cr.No.145/2004) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur for the offences under Sections 12 (1)(b)(d) & (e) and 12(1-A)(a) of the Passport Act. According to the petitioner, the maximum penalty contemplated for the offences is only 2 years or fine and he has completed the said period in prison. The charge sheet in C.C.No.736 of 2005 (Airport P.S.Cr.No.145/2004) was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur for the offences under Sections 12 (1)(b)(d) & (e) and 12(1-A)(a) of the Passport Act. According to the petitioner, the maximum penalty contemplated for the offences is only 2 years or fine and he has completed the said period in prison. At this juncture, based on the alleged incident, the first respondent State Government in G.O.Ms.No.943 Public (Law & Order F) Department dated 19.09.2005 detained him under Section 3 (1)(b) of the National Security Act on the ground that he has no permanent address in India and no ostensible means of livelihood and that he would commit such offences and indulge in activities prejudicial to the security of the nation and his continued presence in India has to be regulated. 4. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit substantiating the action taken against the petitioner. 5. Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (i)The purpose of passing detention order as stated in the impugned detention order and grounds on which satisfaction of detaining authority was reached are at variance with each other. Accordingly, the petitioner / detenu was confused whether he should submit a representation against the impugned detention order or satisfaction recorded in the grounds of detention. (ii)Though the detaining authority has referred two other grave offences alleged to have taken place in West Bengal, the possibility of coming out of those cases has not been considered. (iii)(a) Relevant documents, viz., pages 43, 47, 48, 58 and 60 of the paper book are illegible and not readable and hence the petitioner was prevented from making an effective representation. (b) Knowing that the petitioner does not know Tamil, certain documents have not been translated in English and supplied to the detenu. (iv)Though he sent representation dated 30.09.2005 addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India with several details, the same has not been considered in detail but rejected by a non-speaking order by the Central Government vide letter dated 28.10.2005. 6. Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent met all the contentions. 7. 6. Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent met all the contentions. 7. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that on 19.08.2003 at 00.05 hours, Immigration Officer of Chennai Airport intercepted one Smith Mark Evelyn Digby, holding British Passport No.700882754 at Anna International Airport departure counter. During the enquiry by Immigration officials, it came to light that the true name of the passenger is Chandra Prakash Gajurel, S/o. Rameshwar Gajurel, i.e., a resident of Sindholi Madhi, Janakpuri Zonal, Kathmandu, Nepal. On interrogation, he admitted that he is a Nepali citizen and Politburo Member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) (Extremist Group) and tampered the passport of Smith Mark Evelyn Digby of United Kingdom by affixing his photo. After the enquiry, on 21.08.2003, at about 19.55 hours, the Immigration Officials handed over the petitioner to the Airport Police Station with a complaint of one Samsan, Senior Immigration Officer, Bureau of Immigration, Chennai Airport. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Chennai Airport Police Station in Cr.No.145/2003 under Sections 468, 471 IPC r/w 12(1)(b)(d) and (e) of Passport Act. 8. It is further seen that in the course of investigation the petitioner admitted the above facts and informed that he intended to go to London to make propaganda about the Communist Party (Maoist Group) in the foreign countries, particularly in U.K. and planned to go to Frankfurt, Germany and from there to Belgium where there are large number of supporters in the name of Green Party. In the interrogation, he also admitted that Maoist Group has placed certain demands to the Nepal Government and negotiation is being held by his party high command. He has chosen Chennai Airport, because it is a non-sensitive Airport when compared to other major Airports in India. Apart from the said case, the petitioner is also involved in the following two cases in West Bengal. "1. Bhaktinagar Police Station (West Bengal) Case No.182/2004 dated 19.05.2004 under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 123 and 124A IPC. 2. Mal Police Station (West Bengal) Cr,.No.62/2004, dated 04.04.2004 under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 and 124A IPC. " 9. The further details mentioned in the grounds of detention are also relevant. "1. Bhaktinagar Police Station (West Bengal) Case No.182/2004 dated 19.05.2004 under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 123 and 124A IPC. 2. Mal Police Station (West Bengal) Cr,.No.62/2004, dated 04.04.2004 under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 and 124A IPC. " 9. The further details mentioned in the grounds of detention are also relevant. The petitioner, Chandra Prakash Gajurel along with his associates used to visit the areas under Bhaktinagar Police Station and organized secret meeting in the houses of cadres belonging to Maoist Communist Center of India in order to spread Maoist ideology, to start armed revolution and to wage war against the Government of India. On 14.08.2003, he along with his associates, organised a secret meeting in the house of one Padam Prasad Sharma of Nepal, where they discussed about snatching of arms, attack upon Police Out Post, armed revolution and kidnapping of people for ransom. On 15.08.2003, the petitioner along with other persons went to the house of one Thiru Situ Roy (an active cadre of Maoist Communist Centre of India) situate in Hatiadanga police station limits, Bhaktinagar and held a secret meeting with the other cadres of Maoist Communist Centre of India and discussed about armed revolution, snatching of arms, killing of policemen and waging war against the Government of India. On 29.03.2004, after a continuous surveillance, one Mohan Baidya, top ranking leaders of Nepal Communist Party (Maoist), along with one Narayan Bikram Pradhan of Top Line was arrested. During raids, large number of incriminating documents, pamphlets, etc., prejudicial to the safety and security of the State were recovered. The leaders of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) had also held several secret meetings with the members of Napalese National Democratic Front of India with a view to propagate Maoist culture and to incite them to rise up for an insurrection against the State under the banner of Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Hence, the detention order was passed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 10. Mr. Hence, the detention order was passed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. 10. Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel by pointing out that with a view to regulate the continued presence in India, a foreigner can be detained under Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the N.S. Act, but in the case of petitioner, the detaining authority has considered that the detention was also to prevent him from indulging in activities that are prejudicial to the security of the Nation, which is available only under Sub-section (a) of the said Section, the detaining authority is not clear while passing the impugned order of detention. It is true that, after narrating the occurrence that took place at the Airport, Chennai, other two criminal cases in Jalpaiguri in West Bengal and also his close link with Akhil Bharat Nepal Ekta Samaj, which is a terrorist organisation under POTA and finding that there is compelling necessity to detaining him under N.S. Act, the detaining authority passed the order of detention in order to regulate his continued presence while he is in India. In para 21 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority as arrived at the satisfaction for detaining the petitioner under N.S. Act not only to regulate his continued presence in India, but also to prevent him from indulging in activities that are prejudicial to the security of the Nation. Though the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was detained only under Section 3(1)(b) of the N.S. Act, the detaining authority is not justified in arriving at the satisfaction that his detention is warranted in order to prevent him from indulging in activities that are prejudicial to the security of the Nation, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the petitioner is a foreign national/citizen of Nepal and hence, he is subjected to 3(1)(b) of the N.S. Act. 11. The petitioner being a foreigner, with a view to regulate his continued presence in India, the Central or State Government is well within its powers to detain him under N.S. Act. 11. The petitioner being a foreigner, with a view to regulate his continued presence in India, the Central or State Government is well within its powers to detain him under N.S. Act. Though in the detention order the detaining authority has referred to sub-clause (b) alone, in view of the details furnished in the grounds of detention, viz., two criminal case, which are grave in nature [ one under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 123, 124A IPC in respect of Crime No.182/2004, Bhaktinagar Police Station, West Bengal and another under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123 and 124A IPC in Crime No.62/2004 Mal Police Station, West Bengal], it is the duty and responsibility of the detaining authority to regulate his presence in India. The other particulars furnished in the grounds of detention are that the petitioner/detenu is a Politburo Member, holding No.II position in the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and having links with CPI-ML PW and Maoist Communist Center of India and the said Organistations were declared as terrorist organisations under the erstwhile POTA and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is having close links with Akhil Bharat Nepal Ekta Samaj, which was also a terrorist Organisation under POTA and the organizations are declared as terrorist organisations under the newly amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. We are satisfied that with the materials placed, the State Government/detaining authority after satisfying itself, in order to regulate his presence in India, he being a foreigner, invoked the powers vested in it under Section 3 (1)(b) of N.S. Act and passed the impugned order of detention. In the light of the same, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Further, there is no confusion as alleged by the petitioner in the grounds of detention. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has stated that the two criminal cases, alleged to have taken place in West Bengal being grave in nature, the detaining authority has not considered the same. Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention. Accordingly, we reject the first contention. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has stated that the two criminal cases, alleged to have taken place in West Bengal being grave in nature, the detaining authority has not considered the same. Here again, we are unable to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, the detaining authority, after referring the incident that took place at Chennai Airport relating to Crime No.145/2004 of Chennai Airport Police Station and after referring his involvement in two criminal cases that took place in West Bengal, and his activities and association with the banned terrorist Organisations, passed the impugned order of detention. Hence, we are satisfied that the detaining authority considered all the aspects, including the involvement of the petitioner in cases of grave in nature. 13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the detaining authority after knowing that the petitioner being a foreigner, has no immovable properties within India and though secured bail, he could not come out from prison by furnishing proper surety, has not considered the vital aspect that there is no possibility for him to come out, and hence, the order of detention passed with a view to prevent him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the interest of the nation is not warranted. It is true that the petitioner was granted bail by Judicial Magistrate, Alandur dated 08.01.2004 in Criminal M.P.No.74 of 2004 with a direction to furnish two sureties who are required to deposit title deeds before the said Court and since the petitioner is not having any property and no one come forward to furnish title deeds, he could not come out on bail on the date of detention order. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, because of his influence and position, the petitioner may get sureties and in that case, it is not difficult for the petitioner to come out on bail, since bail had already been granted. This aspect has been properly considered by the detaining authority. 14. In respect of two cases that took place in West Bengal, it is not in dispute that pertaining to one case, this Court granted stay and the same is in force as on date. This aspect has been properly considered by the detaining authority. 14. In respect of two cases that took place in West Bengal, it is not in dispute that pertaining to one case, this Court granted stay and the same is in force as on date. In respect of the other case, learned Government Advocate has informed that no warrant of arrest has been issued and in so far as the said case is concerned, the petitioner is a free person. In the light of the above, we are of the view that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the detenu would come out on bail and indulge in activities prejudicial to the interest of the nation cannot be faulted with. 15. It is also relevant to note that though as per Section 8(2) of the N.S. Act, there is no obligation to refer all the details which the detaining authority considered to be against the public interest. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate, all the details have been furnished in the grounds of detention and copies of relevant documents have also been served on the detenu. Apart from those details, learned Government Advocate also placed before us the "secret file", which contain sufficient materials about the involvement and other activities of the petitioner. In this connection, learned Government Advocate has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) reported in State of Punjab vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984 SCC (Cri) 135), wherein their Lordships have held that evidence gathered by the detaining authority against the detenu and the source of information need not be furnished to the detenu. In view of the legal position, we refrain from referring the details found in the "secret file" produced by the learned Government Advocate. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice that certain documents available at pages 43, 47, 48, 58 and 60 of the booklet are illegible and hence, the detenu is not in a position to make an effective representation. He further contended that certain portions in those documents are in Tamil language, which the petitioner could not understand. He further contended that certain portions in those documents are in Tamil language, which the petitioner could not understand. As against the above allegation, in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in para-14, it is stated that those documents are standard Printed documents in Tamil, used in Police Department of Government of Tamil Nadu, but the filled up particulars are in English only. It is further stated that translated copies of pages 3 and 11 of the documents were already supplied to the petitioner on his representation dated 30.09.2005 without prejudice to the documents already supplied. In the counter affidavit, in the same paragraph the first respondent has also stated that photocopies of pages 43, 47, 48, 58 and 60 of the booklet, as received from West Bengal police, were supplied to the petitioner. It is also stated that a legible copy of the document at page 43 subsequently received from the Superintendent of Police, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal was also supplied to the detenu. The clean dark photo copies of the pages 47, 48, 58 and 60 were again taken and supplied to the petitioner. It is seen that the petitioner was also heard in person by the Advisory Board on 14.10.2005. As a matter of fact, the learned Government advocate has brought to our notice that copies of the usual printed matters, after translating the same into English, were supplied to the petitioner. The Government Advocate also produced proof for the same. In such a circumstance, we are satisfied that the petitioner is in no way prejudiced as claimed. 17. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the Government of India has not assigned any reason while considering his representation dated 30.09.2005 and also there is an unreasonable delay in disposal. The reply dated 28.10.2005 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India addressed to the petitioner shows that the representation dated 30.09.2005 has been considered carefully, however, the request has not been acceded to by the Central Government. Though the said reply does not contain details, yet, the fact remains that Ministry of Home Affairs, after considering the representation carefully, informed the petitioner that the request made therein is not acceptable to the Central Government. 18. On direction by the Court, Mr. Though the said reply does not contain details, yet, the fact remains that Ministry of Home Affairs, after considering the representation carefully, informed the petitioner that the request made therein is not acceptable to the Central Government. 18. On direction by the Court, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Central Government standing counsel appearing for the second respondent placed the original records on 28.02.2006, after intimation to the counsel for the petitioner. The records show that the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2005 was duly considered and after finding that there is no case for revocation of the detention order, by a speaking order dated 26.10.2005 Home Secretary, rejected the representation and the decision was sent by post 31.10.2005 and served on the detenu by fax on 29.10.2005. Though no counter affidavit has been filed by the Home Ministry, the original records produced show that the representation was duly considered and rejected by a speaking order. Regarding delay, the particulars furnished by the Additional Central Government standing counsel show that representation dated 30.09.2005 was received by Central Government on 03.10.2005, para-wise remarks were called for and reminder was sent on 06.10.2005, explanation letter from State Government to Central Government was forwarded on 07.10.2005 and received by Central Government on 13.10.2005, 2nd reminder for para-wise remarks was sent on 14.10.2005, remarks letter from State Government to Central Government was sent by post on 15.10.2005 and received by the Central Government by post on 20.10.2005, the file was submitted before O.S.D.(S) on 25.10.2005, before Joint Secretary on 25.10.2005, before S.S.(Home) on 26.10.2005 and before Home Secretary on 26.10.2005, the file was received by O.S.D. (S) on 27.10.2005, representation was rejected on 28.10.2005, the decision was communicated by post on 31.10.2005, and served on detenu by fax on 29.10.2005. It is brought to our notice that 01.10.2005 (Saturday), 02.10.2005 (Sunday), 08.10.2005 (Saturday), 09.10.2005 (Sunday), 11.10.2005 (Ayudha Pooja), 12.10.2005 (Vijayadasami), 15.10.2005 (Saturday), 16.10.1005 (Sunday), 22.10.2005 (Saturday), 23.10.2005 (Sunday), 29.10.2005 (Saturday), 30.10.2005 (Sunday) are holidays and in total 11 holidays. It is brought to our notice that 01.10.2005 (Saturday), 02.10.2005 (Sunday), 08.10.2005 (Saturday), 09.10.2005 (Sunday), 11.10.2005 (Ayudha Pooja), 12.10.2005 (Vijayadasami), 15.10.2005 (Saturday), 16.10.1005 (Sunday), 22.10.2005 (Saturday), 23.10.2005 (Sunday), 29.10.2005 (Saturday), 30.10.2005 (Sunday) are holidays and in total 11 holidays. It is useful to refer that in the case of M.L. Jose vs. Union of India reported in 1992 SCC (Cri.) 661, their Lordships of the Supreme Court found that the representation in COFEPOSA unit dated March 4, 1991 considered and disposed of on March 21, 1991 at Delhi after receipt of comments from the sponsoring authority at Cochin in the State of Kerala is not unreasonable. It is further held that having regard to long distance between Delhi and Cochin and postal delay which might have occurred in transmitting the representation from Delhi to Cochin and thereafter forwarding the comments from Cochin to Delhi, the delay in disposal of the representation is not unreasonable. The same analogy is applicable to the case on hand. If we exclude the intervening holidays and considering the long distance i.e., from Delhi to Cochin and from Chennai to Delhi as well as the postal delay, we hold that the delay in disposal of the representation by the Central Government i not unreasonable. Accordingly, we find no substance in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 19. Further, it is not in dispute that the detention order was passed by the State Government and the said representation dated 30.09.2005 was sent to the State Government from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai without any delay. Accordingly, we find no substance in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. 19. Further, it is not in dispute that the detention order was passed by the State Government and the said representation dated 30.09.2005 was sent to the State Government from the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai without any delay. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent in para-18 it is stated that the representation of the detenu dated 30.09.2005 was received by the Government on 03.10.2005, remarks were called for from the Superintendent of Police, "Q" Branch, CID on 03.10.2005, remarks were received on 07.10.2005, office note was put up on 07.10.2005, the Under Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department considered the representation on 07.10.2005, 8th and 9th of October, 2005 being holidays (Saturday and Sunday), the Additional Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department considered the representation on 10.10.2005, as 11th and 12th of October, 2005 were holidays (Ayudha pooja and Vijayadhasami) the Secretary to Government, Public Department considered the representation on 13.10.2005, the Secretary to Government, Law Department considered the representation on 14.10.2005, the Minister for Law considered and rejected the representation on 14.10.2005, the reply sent to the detenu on 14.10.2005 and the detenu received the same on 14.10.2005. The above details show that the representation was received on 3.10.2005 and disposed of on 14.10.2005. In between 3.10.2005 and 14.10.2005, there were 12 days, out of which there were 4 Government public holidays. It is the claim of the State Government that the representation was continuously and carefully considered and disposed of within 8 days. We are satisfied that there was no delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, this Habeas corpus petition fails and the same is dismissed.