MAHENDRA SINGH DANGI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of learned District Magistrate, Neemuch whereby he has detained the petitioner by exercising power under Sec. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. The singular ground to assail the impugned order is that in the detention order, the learned District Magistrate has not mentioned that petitioner has a valuable right to prefer a representation against the detention order before the same authority namely District Magistrate. The matter is covered by Full Bench decision in WP No.22290/2019 (Kamal Khare Vs. State of MP) 2021(2) MPLJ 554.

(2.) Shri Valmik Sakargayen, learned counsel for the respondents/State fairly admitted that the detention order does not contain any such stipulation that petitioner can prefer representation against the detention order before the same authority. He further agreed that on this ground, Full Bench in Kamal Khare (supra) has held that the detention order stands vitiated because of infringement of said right.

(3.) There is no dispute between the parties that the singular point involved is covered by Full Bench in Kamal Khare (supra) which is consistently followed by this Court in various cases including WP No.9792/2021 (Yatindra Verma vs. State of MP & Ors.). In WP No.9792/2021, this Court opined as under:- 31) Indisputably, the detention order does not contain any stipulation that the detenu has right to prefer representation before the same authority namely, District Magistrate. The reliance is placed on the recent Full Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Kamal Khare (supra). To counter this argument, the bone of contention of learned AAG was that the said Full Bench decision is distinguishable. Full Bench judgment is based on a constitution bench judgment in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 51. In Kamleshkumar (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with the provisions of COFEPOSA Act and the PIT NDPS Act and not with NSA Act. Hence, the said constitution Bench judgment could not have been relied upon.