BAPU ALIAS JYOTIKANTA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order of detention dated 25.7.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur under Annexure 1 in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Sub section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 on the ground that the petitioner was acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The impugned order of detention reads as under :

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that out of the aforesaid 12 Police Cases, the petitioner was acquitted from the first 5 police cases, long before the order of detention was passed against the petitioner. On this ground learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this petition must be allowed and impugned order of detention should be quashed. However, the petitioner made his representation against the aforesaid order of detention by his letter dated 2.8.2003 before the State Government, the Central Government as well as the Advisory Board constituted under the said Act. Subsequently, the order of detention of the petitioner was approved and confirmed.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained and must be quashed. To buttress his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the apex Court in Dharamdas Shamlal Agarwal v. The Police Commissioner and Anr., AIR 1989 SC 1282. It has been, inter alia, held by the apex Court in the aforesaid decision that the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influenced his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order. Where at the time the detaining authority passed the detention order the vital fact, namely, the acquittals of the detenu in two of the cases shown in the table appended to the grounds of detention had not been brought to his notice and on the other hand they were withheld and the detaining authority was given to understand that the trial of those cases was pending, the non placing of the material fact namely the acquittal of detenu in the above said two cases resulting in non application of mind of the detaining authority to the said fact vitiated the requisite subjective satisfaction, rendering the detention order invalid.