Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2348 (ALL)

Anshul v. State of U. P.

2012-10-08

Anil Kumar Agarwal, Ravindra Singh

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri Birendra Singh Khokher and Sri B.R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of accused-respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Ram Dular appearing on behalf of Union of India (respondent No. 6). 2. This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Anshul with the prayers that : 1) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus setting aside the detention order of the petitioner dated 11.1.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh Nagar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and release the petitioner forthwith. 2) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 3) award cost to the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief, of this case are that the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar passed the order dated 11.1.2012 in exercising the powers conferred under section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'NSA") by which the petitioner has been detained in district Jail Ghaziabad under section 3(2) of NSA by referring the grounds of detention also under section 8 of NSA. The order of detention and its grounds dated 11.1.2012 were communicated to the petitioner through Superintendent, District Jail Ghaziabad where the petitioner was already admitted in jail on 13.10.2011 in Case Crime No. 682 of 2011 under sections 364-A, 120-B, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Sector 20, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar and Case Crime No. 121 of 2011 under section 364A I.P.C., Police Station Sector 39, NOIDA Gautam Budh Nagar and in Case Crime No. 705 of 2011 under section 25A of the Arms Act, Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar through judicial custody warrants. Thereafter judicial custody warrants were issued against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 703 of 2011 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar and Case Crime No. 259 of 2011 under sections 392, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Mansoorpur, District Muzaffar Nagar. Thereafter remand order/ custody warrant in case crime No. 121 of 2011 under section 364-A IPC, P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar also received on 17.11.2011. 4. Thereafter remand order/ custody warrant in case crime No. 121 of 2011 under section 364-A IPC, P.S. Sector 39, Gautam Budh Nagar also received on 17.11.2011. 4. The order of detention along with its grounds and other relevant papers were received in district jail on 11.1.2012, the same were served upon the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 11.1.2012, the contents of the same were read over and explained to the petitioner. In pursuance of the grounds of the detention the petitioner was duly informed with regard to his right of representation to different authorities as mentioned in the grounds of detention, including the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, he was also informed to submit the representation at the earliest and if he desires to submit the representation to the District Magistrate (Detaining Authority), then he was informed to submit the same within 12 days or before approval of the detention order, whichever was earlier. The petitioner submitted his representation at District Jail Ghaziabad on 21.1.2012 which was sent to the office of District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on the same day i.e. on 19.1.2012. 5. The detention order dated 11.1.2012, grounds of detention and other connected papers were forwarded by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar to the State Government vide his letter dated 11.1.2012, the same were received by State Government on 12.1.2012 after examining every aspect of the case of the petitioner, the State Government approved the order of detention on 20.1.2012, the order of approval was communicated to the petitioner through the district authorities by the State Government by sending a radiogram and letter dated 20.1.2012. The copy of detention order, grounds of detention and all connected papers received from District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar were sent by the State Government to Central Government by Speed Post on 23.1.2012. 6. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board by the State Government along with all the documents on 20.1.2012. The petitioner's representation dated 21.1.2012 was sent to the office of District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar by jail authority on 21.1.2012 which was received in the office of District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar on 21.1.2012, but the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar sent the representation immediately to S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar for providing parawise comments, the comments of S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar were not received then on 24.1.2012 a reminder was sent. Thereafter reminders dated 1.2.2012 and 4.2.2012 were sent. The comments of sponsoring authorities were received through letter dated 6.2.2012, after receiving the same, the district Magistrate prepared his own comments and sent the same to the State Government through letter dated 7.2.2012, the same was received in the office concerned of the State Government on 9.2.2012. The State Government sent the copies of the representation and parawise comments thereon to the Advisory Board as well as Central Government vide its separate letter dated 10.2.2012. Thereafter, the concerned office of the State Government examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 13.2.2012, it was examined by Under Secretary, Home and Confidential Department, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow on 14.2.2012, thereafter it was examined by Special Secretary and Secretary of same Department on 15.2.2012 and it was submitted to higher authorities of the State Government for passing the final order. After due consideration, the said representation was finally rejected by the State Government on 15.2.2012, the rejection of representation was communicated to the petitioner by the State Government by radiogram dated 16.2.2012. 7. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board by sending all the documents on 20.1.2012, the Advisory Board by its letter dated 18.2.2012 informed the State Government that the case of the petitioner will be taken up for hearing on 22.2.2012 and directed that the petitioner be informed if he desires to attend the hearing before the Advisory Board along with his next friend ( Non Advocate), he could do so and be allowed to take his next friend along with him if he so requires. This fact was accordingly communicated to the petitioner through District Authorities by the State Government by sending radiogram dated 21.2.2012., the petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board on the date fixed, the Advisory Board heard the petitioner in person, considered all the documents including the representation of the petitioner and gave its report by sending its complete record, expressing therein its opinion that there was sufficient cause for detaining the petitioner, it was received in the concerned office in the State Government through Registrar U.P. Advisory Board on 28.2.2012. On receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government once again examined afresh the entire case of the petitioner and took a decision to confirm the detention order and also to keep the petitioner under detention for a period of 12 months on 2.3.2012. According to the order of confirmation and for keeping the petitioner under detention for a period of 12 months from the date of actual detention under the NSA was issued by State Government through radiogram and letter both dated 2.3.2012. 8. The representation of the petitioner along with parawise comments was forwarded by State of U.P. through its letter dated 10.2.2012, it was received in the concerned section of the Ministry of Home Affairs on 14.2.2012, it was put up for consideration before Union Home Secretary on 27.2.2012. The Union Home Secretary after duly considering the order of detention, its grounds, the petitioner's representation and comments of the detaining Authority thereon, rejected the representation on 2.3.2012 and the record was sent back to the Joint Secretary with receipt on 7.3.2012, accordingly, the wireless massage dated 9.3.2012 was sent to the Home Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Superintendent District Jail Ghaziabad, District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and petitioner informing him that his representation was considered and rejected by Central Government, the copy of the wireless message was also sent by post on 9.3.2012 to the petitioner (through Superintendent Jail) as well as Superintendent District Jail Ghaziabad with a request to serve the copy to the petitioner and forward the acknowledgement from the petitioner to this Ministry. The report as envisaged under section 3(5) of NSA was sent to the Central Government in the Ministry of Home Affairs by State Government of U.P. through its letter dated 20.1.2012. The said report was received by Central Government in the concerned Section on 30.1.2012. 9. The detention of the petitioner has been challenged on the following grounds by submitting that detention of the petitioner is illegal:- I) Because the representation of the petitioner was also forwarded through proper channel to the Ministry of Home, Govt. of India and the State Govt. But representation of the petitioner was not decided immediately by the Central Govt. 9. The detention of the petitioner has been challenged on the following grounds by submitting that detention of the petitioner is illegal:- I) Because the representation of the petitioner was also forwarded through proper channel to the Ministry of Home, Govt. of India and the State Govt. But representation of the petitioner was not decided immediately by the Central Govt. and, therefore, there was violation of Article 22(5) read with Article 21, 124, 19 of the Constitution of India and also there is a violation of Section 8, 14 read with section 3(5) of the National Security Act. II) Because the provision of section 3(5) of the National Security Act has not been complied with inasmuch as the State Govt. has not reported the facts along with relevant entire document to the Central Govt. together with the ground on which the order has been made within seven days and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Govt. have bearing for the necessity for the order. The Central Govt. has also not decided the representation of the petitioner immediately. III) Because the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and has not committed any crime except falsely implicated by the police in Case Crime No. 682 of 2011, Under Section 364-A, 341 & 120-B of Indian Penal Code, Police Station sector-20 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar. IV) Because during the course of hearing before the Advisory Board the petitioner was discriminated. He has not been given any legal advisor. On the other hand from the side of the police Inspector, who has sent the report for initiating proceedings under the National Security Act against the petitioner along with other police officers and also from the side of the State Govt. Legal Advisor were present and they have put their case against the petitioner and as such there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. V) Because the impugned order regarding the detention of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary, improper and against the article 22(5), 21, 14 & 19 of the Constitution of India and also there is violation of section 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), 8, 10, 12 & 14 of the National Security Act. VI) Because the petitioner has no criminal history at all except the present case. The future of the petitioner has been ruined by passing the detention order under the national Security Act. VI) Because the petitioner has no criminal history at all except the present case. The future of the petitioner has been ruined by passing the detention order under the national Security Act. VII) Because the future of the petitioner has been ruined. He has been throughout first lass and has completed B.Tech. And is preparing or competitions. VIII) Because in this case in fact no public order is disturbed and that the most this case can e said a case of disturbance of law and order regarding which police has already registered the case against the guilty persons and the petitioner will face the criminal trial. There is no justification of the District Magistrate to detain the petitioner under National Security Act. IX) Because the District Magistrate has not applied his mind while passing the impugned detention order under the provisions of the national Security Act a to whether in such a matter a person can be detained under the provisions of National Security Act or not. It appears that the District Magistrate was swayed by extraneous consideration in passing of the order of detention. X) Because the present National Security Act has been imposed upon the petitioner simply on the ground that he has moved a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh nagar. However, the bail was not granted. There is no justification for the respondents to implicate the petitioner under the National Security Act. 10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 11.1.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the petitioner has been detained under NSA is illegal. The District Magistrate has not applied his mind even he did not peruse the documents which were sent by the sponsoring authority. The petitioner was not arrested on 12.10.2011 as shown by the police whereas the SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar himself sent FAX message to the higher authorities on 11.10.2011 mentioning therein that ten miscreants including the petitioner were arrested on 11.10.2011 and from their possession the amount of Rs. Four crores and twenty five lacs was recovered and in addition to it from their possession two pistols, cartridges in huge quantities, two cars (swift and maruti-800) were also recovered. This FAX message belies the story of arrest of the petitioner and recovery. Four crores and twenty five lacs was recovered and in addition to it from their possession two pistols, cartridges in huge quantities, two cars (swift and maruti-800) were also recovered. This FAX message belies the story of arrest of the petitioner and recovery. The petitioner has been shown arrested by the police on 12.10.2011 at about 8.00 A.M. from the house of one Vinay Kumar by alleging that the petitioner and three other persons were sitting on a 'Deewan' in a room of Vinay Kumar. On query made by the Arresting Officer the petitioner and three other persons replied that they were called by Ish Kumar for carrying the amount of Rs. Ten lacs at the proper place. On search made by the police from that 'Deewan' the amount of Rs. One crore and ten lacs was recovered. Its recovery memo had also been prepared on 12.10.2011. In the present case the arrest of the petitioner has been shown by the police on 12.10.2011 whereas according to the SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar the petitioner and nine other miscreants were arrested on 11.10.2011 and from their possession the amount of Rs. Four crores and twenty five lacs was recovered. The FAX message sent by SSP falsify the arrest of the petitioner and recovery memo by the police. This fact has also not been considered properly by the detaining authority. It is further submitted that according to the prosecution version along with the petitioner Ish Kumar, Somveer and Sanjeev Kumar were also arrested and according to the prosecution version the petitioner and other persons had gone to the place of the arrest on call given by Ish Kumar. But the co-accused Ish Kumar, Somveer and Sanjeev Sanjeev Kumar have not been implicated or detained under National Security Act and without any proper reason this discrimination has been made. 11. The petitioner is well educated person, he is B.Tech. having the excellent academic career, he has been falsely implicated in criminal cases and without any proper reason the order for detaining him under National Security Act has been passed. The representation given by the petitioner has not been properly considered by any of the authority and without any proper reason it has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, State Government and Central Government and without proper reason the Advisory Board has given the opinion against the petitioner. The representation given by the petitioner has not been properly considered by any of the authority and without any proper reason it has been rejected by the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, State Government and Central Government and without proper reason the Advisory Board has given the opinion against the petitioner. In such circumstances the detention order as well as the further detention detention of the petitioner is illegal, he may be released forthwith. 12. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the District Magistrate Gautam Budh Nagar has not committed any error in passing the order of detention dated 11.1.2012 under the NSA. The State Government has approved the order of detention after considering the order of detention and all other relevant documents sent by District Magistrate. There is no delay on the part of the Government in referring the matter to the Advisory Board and Central Government. The State Government has duly sent the representation to the Advisory Board as well as Central Government. There is no delay on the part of District Magistrate in rejecting the representation sent by the petitioner, the comments have been sent by the District Magistrate without making any delay to the State Government, the State Government has not committed any error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The Advisory Board has also not committed any error in recording its opinion. Again the State Government has not committed any error in confirming the order of detention. There is no delay on the part of the authority concerned in sending the representation to the Authority concerned for taking the decision and there was no delay on the part of any Authority in communicating the appropriate orders to the petitioner, the Central Government has also not committed any error in rejecting the representation of the petitioner. It is submitted by Sri Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India that there was no delay on the part of the Central Government in deciding the representation, it was duly considered and rejected on 2.3.2012, thereafter it was properly communicated to the petitioner and other relevant authorities. The District Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the order of detention dated 11.1.2012, thereafter the proper procedure has been followed as provided by the NSA. The District Magistrate has not committed any error in passing the order of detention dated 11.1.2012, thereafter the proper procedure has been followed as provided by the NSA. The State Government after receiving the parawise comments considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same on 15.2.2012. The period taken for passing the order of representation has been properly explained by the State Government, the order of detention has been approved by the Government within a period of 12 days as required under section 3(4) of the NSA. The copy of detention order and other connected papers were sent to the Central Government by the State Government within 7 days from the date of approval as required under section 3(5) of NSA. The provisions of Section 3(4) and 3 (5) of NSA have been fully complied with. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board along with all the documents within a period of 3 weeks from the date of his actual detention as required under section 10 of the NSA. The report of Advisory Board has been received by the State Government within 7 weeks as provided under section 11 (1) of NSA. There is no violation of any provision of the NSA. The act committed by the petitioner is affecting the public order. 13. It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the petitioner was arrested on 12.10.2011 at about 8.00 A.M. and from the 'Deewan' of the co-accused Vinay Kumar the amount of Rs. One Crore 10 lacs was recovered. The petitioner was also present there. He has not shown any reason of his presence at the alleged place of occurrence. The recovery memo was prepared on 12.10.2011, it has been signed by petitioner also. So far as Fax Message allegedly sent by the S.S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar to the higher authority on 11.10.2011 is concerned, in fact it has not been sent on 11.10.2011. In fact it was sent on 12.10.2011 under the wrong notion the date 11.10.2011 has been mentioned therein because the Fax message was received in the office of the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut, Inspector General of Police Range Meerut, Deputy Inspector General of Police Range, Meerut on 12.10.2011. In fact it was sent on 12.10.2011 under the wrong notion the date 11.10.2011 has been mentioned therein because the Fax message was received in the office of the Commissioner, Meerut Mandal, Meerut, Inspector General of Police Range Meerut, Deputy Inspector General of Police Range, Meerut on 12.10.2011. In support of this submission Sri Pravin Kumar, S.S.P., Gautam Budh Nagar filed his affidavit annexing with it the copy of letter dated 19.9.2012 mentioning therein that Fax Message 11.10.2011 was received by his office on 12.10.2011, such letter has also been written by D.I.G. Meerut mentioning therein that Fax message 11.10.2011 was received to his office on 12.10.2011. The communication of Fax does not take the time of one day, it is always communicated on day of receiving, it shows that inadvertently dated 11.10.2011 has been mentioned in Fax message whereas it was sent on 12.10.2011, such error often occurs. The gravity of the offence is too much. In case of National Security Act the parity may not be claimed with other person against whom such order has not been passed. It always depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case of each person. In support of his submission, learned A.G.A. has cited the case of Yogendra Murari vs. Sate of U.P. and others, reported in 1988 (4) Supreme Court Cases 559, its relevant paragraph No.9, which reads as under :- "9. There is no merit whatsoever in the petitioner's grievance of discrimination on the ground that the other co-accused persons have not been detained. The role of the petitioner and that of the others are not identical and the reasonable apprehension as to their future conduct must depend on the relevant facts and circumstances which differ from individual to individual. It would have been wrong on the part of detaining authority to take uniform decision in this regard only on the ground that the persons concerned are all joined together as accused in a criminal case." 14. In such circumstances, the learned District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and subsequent detention of the petitioner is not illegal. The present petition is devoid of merit, the same may be dismissed. 15. In such circumstances, the learned District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar has not committed any error in passing the impugned order and subsequent detention of the petitioner is not illegal. The present petition is devoid of merit, the same may be dismissed. 15. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and Sri Dular, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India, it appears that the order of detention dated 11.1.2012 has been passed by District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar mainly on the basis of the involvement of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 682 of 2011 under section 364A I.P.C., Police Station Sector 20 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar, its information was given to the police station concerned on 22.9.2011 at 1.45 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 21.9.2011 at about 7.00 P.M. alleging therein that one Kapil Gupta who had left his office at about 7.00 P.M. on 21.9.2011 did not reach to his house, its information of missing was converted in an offence punishable under section 364-A on 24.9.2011 at 9.15 A.M. on the basis of report submitted to the Police Station that Kapil Gupta was abducted for ransom. Thereafter 3 persons namely Anshul Bawra, Kapil and Vinay Kumar were arrested on 11.10.2011 at 10.30 P.M. by the police of Police Station Kasna, its FIR was lodged on 12.10.2011 at 1.45 A.M. The firing was made them at the police party but fortunately the police party did not sustain any injury and they were apprehended on spot. From their possession a USA made pistol 32 bore along with 2 live cartridges one Italy made automatic pistol 9 mm along with 4 live cartridges and one 38 bore revolver along with 5 live cartridges and one empty cartridge were recovered and from the place of incident, two empty cartridges of 9 mm and one empty cartridge of 32 bore were recovered. After making their arrest the police came to their car No. UP 16 AB 7464 Swift Dezire, in their presence the search was made, from its diggi Rs. Two crores were recovered. They made confessional statements before the police that they had abducted Kapil Gupta who was in Mercedes Car on 21.9.2011 and the amount of Rs. 5 crores was realised from his family members as ransom for releasing Kapil Gupta. Two crores were recovered. They made confessional statements before the police that they had abducted Kapil Gupta who was in Mercedes Car on 21.9.2011 and the amount of Rs. 5 crores was realised from his family members as ransom for releasing Kapil Gupta. They disclosed the names of other co-accused Monu Gurjar, Sunny and Sumit @ Gajni, it was also confessed by them that the recovered Car was also looted by them from District Muzaffar Nagar, they also confessed that they had abducted one Saurabh Jain, who was working in the office of Kapil Gupta, on 23.2.2011, he was released after realising the amount of Rs. 25 lacs from the wife of Saurabh Jain, out of which, the amount of Rs. 10 lacs was spent and remaining amount of 15 lacs was kept at the house of Anshul Bawra and they assured the police to recover the remaining amount of ransom. 16. At their pointing out the amount of Rs. One crore was recovered from the double bed of co-accused Kapil, on interrogation it was disclosed that aforesaid amount of money was taken as a ransom. Thereafter at their pointing out the amount of Rs. 15 lacs, which was realised as ransom in an abduction of Saurabh Jain, was recovered from the kitchen of Anshul Bawra, thereafter the amount of Rs. one crore and 10 lacs was recovered from the house of Vinay Kumar. They also confessed about the abduction of Saurabh Jain and disclosed the fact that one Hundai Car was used in commission of above offence, which was also looted by them. 17. According to the grounds of detention, one Kapil Gupta was abducted who was released after realising the amount of Rs. 5 Crores as ransom, one Saurabh Jain, who was also working in the office of Kapil Gupta, was abducted and after realising the amount of Rs. 25 lacs from his wife he was released. The co-accused of the present case, namely, Kapil, Anshul Bawra and Vinay Kumar were arrested by the police, their 3 associates, namely, Monu Gurjar, Sunny, Sumit alias Gajni successfully escaped from the alleged place of incident, at their pointing out Rupees Two Crores kept in the Diggi of Swift Dezire car were recovered. They made confessional statement about abduction of Kapil Gupta and Saurabh Jain. At their pointing out, Rs. They made confessional statement about abduction of Kapil Gupta and Saurabh Jain. At their pointing out, Rs. 15 lacs were recovered from the house of co-accused Anshul Bawra, at their pointing out, the amount of Rs. One crore was recovered from the double bed of co-accused Kapil. Thereafter at their pointing out, from the house of Vinay Kumar the amount of Rs. One Crore and 10 lacs were recovered from a Deewan where the petitioner was also sitting along with 3 others persons. The petitioner had made a confessional statement that he was called to carry the amount of Rs. one crore and 10 lacs at appropriate place. The petitioner was not resident of village of Vinay Kumar and no other reason of his presence has been shown at the alleged place of incident. Though the petitioner has shown his good academic career, he could not explain as to why he has been falsely implicated by the police. So far as his arrest is concerned, according to recovery memo of the arrest, he was shown arrested on 12.10.2011, the S.S.P. Gautam Budh Nagar has submitted the documents showing that the Fax message was received in the office of Commissioner Meerut, Mandal, I.G. and DIG Meerut Range on 12.10.2011, it is submitted that due to some mistake on Fax message the date 11.10.2011 has been mentioned in place of 12.10.2011. This submission made by counsel for the petitioner may be subject matter of trial court in a case in which the petitioner has been shown arrested but at this stage it may not be said that the detaining authority has not applied his mind on the basis of material available before him. It appears that the petitioner is involved in a very serious offence which is affecting the public order, detaining authority has not committed any error. 18. The detaining authority has not committed any error in passing the order. Thereafter, proper procedure has been followed in communicating to the petitioner in respect of the detention order. The petitioner was duly apprised about his right with regard to the representation etc. The State Government has not committed any error in approving the order of detention and well within time the order of detention was communicated and documents of representation were sent to the Advisory Board. The petitioner was duly apprised about his right with regard to the representation etc. The State Government has not committed any error in approving the order of detention and well within time the order of detention was communicated and documents of representation were sent to the Advisory Board. The State Government has rejected the representation of the petitioner after following proper procedure and without making any delay. The advisory board also followed proper procedure in calling the petitioner, thereafter, advisory board recorded finding against the petitioner, which was duly communicated to the State Government, thereafter, the State Government again reconsidered the matter in the light of the opinion expressed by the advisory board and affirmed the order of detention for a period of 12 months, on the part of the Central Government also there was no delay in deciding the representation and there was no fault on the part of the State Government in referring the matter to the Central Government. The Central Government rejected the representation well within time and the same was communicated to the petitioner also. In such circumstances we are of the view that the grounds on which the order of detention of the petitioner has been passed, are having no substance and the petitioner has failed to establish that the detention of the petitioner, is illegal. The impugned order of detention dated 11.1.2012 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity. In pursuance of the order dated 11.1.2012 proper procedure has been followed to keep the petitioner under detention. There is no violation of any mandatory provision of N.S.A., therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 11.1.2012 is refused. The detention of the petitioner is not illegal, therefore, the prayer for releasing the petitioner without serving the period of detention is refused. Since the detention of the petitioner is not illegal, therefore the prayer for awarding the cost is also refused. 19. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.