KADIM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition has been made to the legality of order of opposite party No.2-Collector, Sambalpur passed on 24.10.2013 in exercise of power under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short, "NS Act") directing detention of the petitioner on the ground that there is non- application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, petitioner's case in a nut-shell is that the grounds of detention issued by opposite party No.2 on 25.10.2013 was served on the detenu on 26.10.2013 while the petitioner-detenu was in Circle Jail, Sambalpur. The detenu made a representation on 14.11.2013 to the State Government against the order of detention. Further case of the petitioner is that his representation was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board found that there was sufficient cause for rejection of the representation of the detenu dated 14.11.2013. The said representation had been considered and rejected by the State Government. Similarly, the detenu was informed on 06.12.2013 that his representation had been considered and rejected by the Central Government. The detenu was informed about rejection of his representation vide letter dated 18.12.2013.Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Though several grounds had been taken to challenge the order of detention in the writ petition, Mr. Saring, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the ground that the order of detention has been passed mechanically without application of mind by the detaining authority; therefore, the order of detention passed under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in law. Mr. Saring drew attention of this Court to the report of the Superintendent of Police as well as the grounds of detention and submitted that those were prepared on the very same day the detention order was passed. The grounds of detention is the exact verbatim reproduction of the report of the Superintendent of Police which indicates that instead of applying his mind independently to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Detaining Authority has simply reproduced the report of the Superintendent of Police in the grounds of detention.