NILU BARAL Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dhal, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, detenue in custody on the appropriate government having directed so in exercise of power under sub-sec. (2) in Sec. 3 of National Security Act, 1980. He submits, report dtd. 4/11/2023 of the Superintendent of Police (SP) was allegedly relied upon to issue order of detention dtd. 8/11/2023. Copy of the report was not supplied to his client, preventing him from making effective representation to the Advisory Board. Specific allegation was made in clause-(c) of paragraph-10 in the petition. He submits further, the non-application of mind is apparent on the detention order having been issued on 8/11/2023 but the grounds made known on 9/11/2023 by the notice to his client. He relies on decisions of this Court in Sailendra Kumar Jora vrs. District Magistrate reported in (2007) 36 OCR 833 and Papu vrs. Principal Secretary, Government of Odisha reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Orissa 1128 to submit, the order of detention be quashed.

(2.) Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State-opposite parties and Mr. Parhi, learned advocate, Deputy Solicitor General for the Central Government.

(3.) Opposite party no.2 (District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Puri) in the affidavit filed by the office has clearly stated in paragraph-9 that, inter alia, report of the SP had already been supplied to the detenue on 9/11/2023. Said opposite party had issued notice dtd. 9/11/2023 but in it, documents enclosed did not include the report. We, however, prima facie accept statement made in the counter asserting service because the notice itself is based on the report. It was subsequently disclosed in the counter of opposite party no.3. We have ascertained from said notice dtd. 9/11/2023, it enclosed documents in respect of cases submitted by the SP in his report. The introduction sentence from said notice dtd. 9/11/2023 is reproduced below.