THAKURI BAI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Thakuri Bai, obtained a rule in this case upon the State of Rajasthan to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the detention order, issued by the State Government against her son, Tillu alias Tillumal, son of Mianmal Sindhi, resident of Surajpole. Kota, vide No. F. 2/21 (24) Home-5/80. dated. December 26, 1980, under section 3 (2), National Security Act, 1980 (for short, the Act) and consequently directing the release from detention of the said Tillu.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this petition may be shortly stated here. On December 26, 1980. the State Government made an order under section 3 (2) of the Act directing that Tillu be detained, stating therein that it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Tillu was arrested on December 27, in pursuance of that order, and sent to Central Jail, Jaipur, where he is being detained these days. THE grounds of detention were communicated to Tillu, vide, letter, dated, December 30, 1980. from the Home Secretary to the Govt. of Raj. THE Home Secretary made it clear in this letter that if Tillu was desirous of making any representation against the detention order, he could do so and forward the same to him through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur. THE grounds of detention which are in Hindi may be reproduced here : *** THEse grounds and the supportive documents were placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. On January 29, 1981, the Board considered the entire material and recorded the opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of Tillu. On receipt of this report, the State Government confirmed the detention order on February 18, 1981, and directed that the detenu shall be kept in detention for the maximum period of 12 months from the date of his detention. In other words, the detenu has been ordered to be detained till December 26, 1981.

(3.) AS for the argument that the grounds are irrelevant, Mr. Tyagi's thesis is that since all the grounds bear upon law and order, rather than public order, they are irrelevant and therefore the detention order is bad. This argument is covered by item number (iii) of the summary of the grounds given by us in an earlier part of this judgment. It will therefore be dealt with presently when we take up those grounds. Ground No. (i)