MITU ALIAS BHIMSEN GURU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Habeas Corpus petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention dated 18.8.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 detaining him (petitioner) in custody.

(2.) THE facts briefly are that on 18.8.2001 the impugned detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Sambalpur. On 21.8.2001, the detention order and the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. On 21.8.2001, the petitioner submitted a representation to the District Magistrate, Sambalpur against the order of detention which was sent to the State Government on 25.8.2001. On 27.8.2001, the State Government approved the order of detention and on 29.8.2001 rejected the representation of the petitioner but communicated the order of rejection to the petitioner in its letter dated 9.10.2001. By a communication dated 17.10.2001, the Central Government also rejected the representation dated 27.9.2001 of the petitioner. On 9.10.20001 the Advisory Board, to whom the case was referred, passed orders confirming the order of detention and directed that the petitioner shall continue in detention for twelve months in the Circle Jail, Sambalpur until further orders. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order of detention dated 18.8.2001 (Annexure -1).

(3.) IN N. Meera Rani's case (supra), the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decision on the point held that subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention and the decision must depend on the facts of the particular case, but the detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order and if the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied on cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made even in anticipation to operate on his release.