ANIL KUMAR SOOD Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, which was affirmed in appeal/revision dated 24.7.2010 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- 1. The petitioner was admittedly detained in MISA from 22.2.1976 to 8.3.1977. The State Government issued a Gazette notification (Annexure P-6) whereby the rules were framed which are known as (Misa/DIR Rajnetik Ya Samajik Karno Se Nirudh Vyakti) 'Samman-nidhi Niyam, 2008' (hereinafter referred to as "MISA" Rules). The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed format (Annexure P-7) for grant of "Samman Nidhi". This application of the petitioner was rejected by a non-speaking order dated 17.9.2009 (Annerxure P-9). The petitioner pursuant to a remedy available under Rule 8 of MISA Rules preferred a representation before the State Government. In turn, the State Government passed the order dated 3/2/2010 and remitted the matter back to the District Magistrate to pass a reasoned and speaking order. In turn, the said authority passed the order Annexure P-10 and rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner's representation was also rejected by the State Government on 24.7.2010. These orders dated 22.2.2010 and 24.7.2010 are called in question in this petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was admittedly detained in custody from 22.2.1976 to 8.3.1977 under MISA. However, the singular reason assigned for rejecting his representation reads as under:-

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is clear that pursuant to criminal case No. 20/75, the petitioner cannot be said to be a person of having criminal record of anti-social activities. It is a matter of common knowledge that this kind of provisions of Cr.P.C. are invoked against many social workers and it does not brand them either as an anti social or a criminal. This cannot stamp him as persons with criminal history or record. The respondents have not applied their mind on the effect of FR dated 8.7.75 reflected in Annexure P-2. Consequently, it is clear that respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner without proper application of mind. The respondents are under a legal obligation to examine the events after 8.7.75 when FR was recorded against the petitioner.