SUNITA RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The singular point raised by the petitioner is that in the detention order dated 03.06.2021, the learned District Magistrate has not mentioned that the detenu - Rakesh Rajput can prefer representation against the detention order before the same authority namely District magistrate thereby violating a valuable right of the petitioner flowing from Article 22 of the Constitution of India. This point is squarely covered by a recent Full Bench Judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No.22290/2019 (Kamal Khare v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh) which is followed in W.P. No.9630/2021 (Gurubachan Singh Saluja v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) by this Court.

(2.) Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General 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.) This Court in Gurubachan Singh Saluja (supra) followed the Full Bench decision and opined as under:-