Sajid vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

R.K. Rastogi and A.K. Roopanwal, JJ.—This habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the detention order dated 28.5.08 passed by Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act and for his release from detention under the above Act.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.G.A., for the State and Sri B. P. Mishra, learned Advocate for Union of India.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in this case co-accused Nafees, who was detained under the National Security Act in respect of the same incident which has been alleged against the Petitioner, has been released and the detention order passed against him has been revoked on 1.9.08. He submitted that the allegation against the Petitioner and Nafees was the same and so after allowing benefit of the above order of revocation, the Petitioner should also be released on the ground of parity, revoking the detention order passed against him.

This prayer was refuted by the learned A.G.A. He submitted that Nafees had submitted his representation against the detention order and after consideration of that representation, the Central Government passed an order for revocation of his detention. He submitted that in the present case the Petitioner did not submit any representation as is apparent from para 5 of the counter-affidavit of the Jail Superintendent Respondent No. 6, and so when the Petitioner has not submitted any representation against his detention order, he cannot get benefit of revocation of the detention order passed in favour of the co-accused Nafees.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner could not file his representation due to ignorance, and when he had not filed his representation, he must be given benefit of the order which has been passed in favour of the co-accused Nafees on the ground of parity and the right of equality provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the time which was allowed to the Petitioner for filing the representation has expired, and so now he has got the remedy of writ only.

We do not agree with the above contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. There is no limitation period for submitting a representation against the detention under the National Security Act, and even if the Petitioner had not submitted his representation at the earlier stage, he may now submit his representation to the concerned authorities and may take a plea in that representation that the co-accused Nafees who had been detained under the National Security Act, has now been released in accordance with the order dated 1.9.08 and so benefit of that order should be given to him also. But the present habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable when the Petitioner has got the alternative remedy of submitting his representation to the concerned authorities.

The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable with this observation that the Petitioner may file his representation against the detention order and if any such representation is submitted by the Petitioner to the Jail Superintendent, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in view of the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.