KASHMIR JAT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY moving this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the order dated 5th April 2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary Home Department to the State of M.P. Bhopal under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act 1980 whereunder the order passed by the District Magistrate Guna has been made absolute with extension of period of detention as mentioned in the order itself. The facts leading to the case may be summed up as under: -

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the provisions contained in the Act, do not mean to avail the same in a casual manner. It is submitted that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act can be invoked only on satisfying the grounds mentioned therein. Mere involvement in several criminal cases of a person can in no manner suggest to exercise such powers unless the same fulfills the requirements satisfying the grounds mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. It is submitted that the detention order dated 16th February, 2012 passed by the District Magistrate under Section 3(2) of the Act as well as the order dated 5th April 2012 passed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) State of M.P. under Section 12(1) of the Act, marked as Annexure -P/1 on behalf of the State Government, did not show to have considered in their true perspective the provisions as contemplated in Section 3(2) of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is not involved either directly or indirectly in any of the criminal activities against the Nation or Public at large. Therefore, it is prayed that an appropriate writ/order/directions may be issued to quash the order Annexure -P/1 dated 5th April, 2012 passed by the State which is against the provisions of the Act and the authorities may be directed to release the petitioner from the detention. In support of her submissions aforesaid, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Smt. Victoria Farnandes Vs. Lalman Sawma & others ( : AIR 1992 SC 687) & Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate Burdwan & others ( : AIR 1964 SC 334).

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State. Also perused the relevant laws applicable to the case alongwith the documents annexed with the petition.