SHANKER MIHANI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10-10-2007 of the Collector, Hoshangabad detaining him under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE facts as briefly stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner contested election for the post of Councillor, Municipal Council, Itarsi on 24-11-2004 and was declared elected from Ward No. 17 securing maximum number of votes. On 18-4-2007, the Collector Hoshangabad issued an order of externment of the petitioner under the M. P. Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 expelling him from Hoshangabad, Harda, Betul, Narsinghpur, Sehore and raisen Districts for a period of one year on grounds mentioned in the order. The petitioner challenged the order of externment before the High Court and the high Court directed the stay of the order of externment. Thereafter, the Police arrested the petitioner under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner applied for bail and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Itarsi granted bail but directed him to furnish a solvent surety of Rs. 1 lac. When the solvent surety was furnished and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Itarsi accepted the solvent surety and directed for release of the petitioner, an order of detention was passed by the Collector, Hoshangabad on 10-10-2007 and the petitioner was taken into custody in execution of the order of detention on 10-10-2007. Thereafter, the grounds of detention were served on 14-10-2007.

(3.) MR. Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on two earlier occasions, the petitioner was detained under the national Security Act but the Advisory Board did not approve the detention orders and the petitioner was released. He submitted that on the first occasion when the order of detention was passed, 49 cases were listed in the grounds of detention, but the Advisory Board did not find those cases prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He further submitted that on the second occasion when the order of detention was passed, in the grounds of detention, 87 cases were listed, but the Advisory Board again did not find the 87 cases listed in the grounds of detention to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He submitted that most of the grounds for detention of the petitioner under the impugned order dated 10-10-2007 are also repetitions of the grounds on which the two earlier orders were passed. He argued that it will be clear from the grounds of detention served to the petitioner that first 97 cases related to the incidents which have taken place during 26-2-1984 to 19-9-2006, more than one year before the order of detention was issued on 10-10-2007 and submitted that in Shiv Prasad Vs. State of M. P. and another, AIR 1981 SC 870, the Supreme court has held that grounds of detention must be approximate and not stale and that staleness of the grounds of detention is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.