RINKU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the detention order No. 04/NSA/2013, Sidhi, dated 26/12/2014 at pre-execution stage, whereby the District Magistrate Sidhi in exercise of powers under clause 2 of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 [No.65 of 1980] (hereinafter referred to the as 'the Act of 1980') has ordered detention of petitioner- Rinku alias Kuldeep Shukla, S/o- Raghvendra Shukla, R/o Bhitari, Police Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi and to keep him in central Jail, Rewa, preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The detention order No. 04/NSA/2013, Sidhi, dated 26/12/2014, on record as Annexure P/2, is quoted below:--

(3.) As averred in the Writ Petition, petitioner is a public representative in District Sidhi and involved in welfare and developmental activities of the people of District Sidhi. He was elected as a Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Sakin, Bhitari, District Sidhi, from 2007 to 2012. His wife-Smt. Neelam Shukla was also Sarpanch of the same Gram Panchayat. Consequent upon declaration of Panchayat General Elections, 2014-15 by the M.P. State Election Commission, election for Janpad Panchayat, Sidhi was scheduled in the month of January, 2015. Petitioner aspiring to become member of the Janpad Panchayat had prepared himself to contest the election to subserve the cause of people of District Sidhi as a Member of Janpad Panchayat. However, looking to his wide popularity in the local area in fact he had become an eyesore for his rival camp and other contesting candidates for Member of Janpad Panchayat. Resultantly, exercising their political clouts and highhandedness, people in the rival camp prevailed over the local District Administration/notified authority under the Panchayat Adhiniyam by the State to declare him as disqualified for contesting the election and thereby to debar him for six years. As a result, an order dated 25/8/2014 was passed in the purported exercise of power under Section 40 of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1993') declaring the petitioner as disqualified for contesting election for six years. His appeal arising therefrom and addressed to the Collector was deliberately kept pending for considerable long period for obvious reasons. Petitioner had to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 19956/2014 seeking indulgence of this Court in the matter of non-consideration of pending appeal by the appellate authority. This Court vide its order dated 20/12/2014 had disposed of the Writ Petition with the direction to the appellate authority, i.e. the Collector, Sidhi, to decide the stay application and also the appeal by speaking order within a period of two months. However, neither the application for stay nor the appeal, as such, has so far been decided by the Collector and the order of this Court remains un-complied. The Collector instead appears to be more inclined to initiate process for passing the detention order against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1980. To facilitate the aforesaid intended action, respondent No. 3 sent a report dated 26/12/2014 to respondent No. 2. The report is on record as Annexure P/6. Respondent No. 3 did not send the report with complete correct facts, in fact it is highly prejudicial and detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 acting mechanically thereupon has passed the impugned order of detention invoking powers contained in Section 3(2) of the Act of 1980 on the same day without even verifying the facts narrated in the said report. As such, respondent No. 2 before passing the impugned order has neither applied his mind nor followed the procedure. The aforesaid action in fact is an invasion of petitioner's fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 and serious threat to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In paragraphs 5.11 to 5.16 it is averred that the grounds shown as premise for passage of the impugned order are false and frivolous, as the petitioner has been acquitted in cases viz. (i) in RT No. 111/2002 petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 6/12/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sidhi, (ii) in RT No. 731/2013 petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 10/12/2014 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sidhi, (iii) in RT No. 915/2009 petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 8/12/2011 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (iv) in RT No. 1254/2008 petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 6/1/2015 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sidhi, (v) in Criminal Case No. 2065/2013 petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 30/11/2013 and (vi) in the case of report of Ashutosh Pandey, he himself has made statement attributing no allegation against the petitioner. It is further averred that the petitioner has never been convicted by any Court in cases mentioned in the report, therefore, it is not correct to say that petitioner is involved in criminal activities or is a habitual offender.