MOHAMMAD RAFIQUE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Shaheeda Begum, wife and next friend of Mohammad Rafique, who is under detention pursuant to the order dated 8-6-2000, Annexure 1, passed by the District Magistrate, Jhalawar.

(2.) In the petition the detention has been assailed on various grounds. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to ground stated at Para No. 9 of the petition. Therefore, it is not necessary to state the facts in great detail. Suffice it to say, the Distt. Magistrate, Jhalawar, having been satisfied that it was necessary for the maintenance of public order and public safety and to ensure communal harmony to detain Mohammad Rafique under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 (for short 'the Act of 1980'), serve the order Annexure 1 on Mohammad Rafique and also supplied him the grounds of detention. In the petition, it has been stated that the District Magistrate did not supply the material to enable the detenu to make effective representation to the State Government or the Central Government. It has been further stated that the material disclosed by the detaining authority was not sufficient to pass the detention order under the Act of 1980. At para No. 9 of the petition, it has been stated that the detenu sent representation to His Excellency the President of India, through registered post on 29th June, 2000, copy of which is Annexure 5, but no communication has been received by the detenu informing him about the fate of his representation. It has been prayed that the detention order, being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, should be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In their return the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, i.e. the State Government and its Officers, justified the detention on the grounds that various criminal cases have been filed against the detenu and that even proceedings under the Gunda Act were taken against him. It has been stated that keeping the detenu at large is prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.