KANARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMLAL , real younger brother of Kanaram petitioner, has filed this habeas corpus writ petition, for quashing the order of the District Magistrate, Ajmer, dated Aug. 1, '89, whereby, the District Magistrate, Ajmer on being satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in the manner prejudicial to public order, it was necessary to detain him under the provisions contained in National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter, for short 'the Act'), ordered his detention; the order containing the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Ajmer, dated Aug. 3,'89; the confirmation [ order of the State Government dated Aug. 10, '89; and the order dated Sept. 21, '89, whereby, the State Government further confirmed the detention -order of the petitioner.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was under arrest in the Criminal Case, registered in pursuance of FIR No. 132/89 Under Sections 152 and 327, IPC. In this Criminal Case, the j petitioner was granted bail on July 26, '89. However, there was one more case against the petitioner, registered in pursuance of FIR No. 155/89 of PS - -Kishangarh, Under Sections 392 and 394, IPC. In that case also, the petitioner was arrested on July 27, '89, at 3.30 PM. In this latter case, the petitioner was released on bail on Aug. 2, '89. But, on that very date, under the detention -order dated Aug. 1, '89, passed by the District Magistrate, Ajmer, (Ann. 1), Under Sub -section (2) read with Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, he was taken into custody. A memorandum of the grounds of detention and the relevant documents were delivered to the petitioner by the District Magistrate on Aug. 3, '89. The State confirmed the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ajmer, by its order dated Aug. 10, '89 (Ann.3). The petitioner was required to attend the meeting of Advisory Board which was going to be held on Aug. 26, '89. The petitioner submitted his representation before the Advisory Board. Thereafter, the petitioner received an order dated Sept. 21, '89, issued by the Home Commissioner, whereby, the petitioner was intimated that the Advisory Board had given its opinion that there were sufficient grounds for the detention of the petitioner, and on the basis of the report of the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed and ordered the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year from Aug. 2, '89 to Aug. 1, '90.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that he had been detained under the Act by the State Government, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He states that the cases registered against him by the police were not of such nature which disturbed, the current of life of the community so as to amount to disturbance of public order. The case were registered on account of enmity and encouragement on the part of the police and 'NUTS' who were indulged in prostitution -business in Village -Badagaon. It is asserted that the petitioner was not acting in any manner which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner was released on bail in the two Criminal Cases, which had been registered against him in pursuance of FIR Nos. 132/89 and 155/89. The meaning of public order' as mentioned in the Act had not been correctly appreciated, and it had been mingled with ordinary order or problem. The petitioner further states that he has been prejudiced in his defence as the relevant documents and papers were not supplied to him. Lastly, it is pleaded that the respondents have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Sub -section (5) of Section 3 of the Act.