JAI SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by Jai Shanker, a family friend of Prem Narain (detenu) son of Shri Har Narain Brahmin, resident of Umed Chowk, Jodhpur, for a writ of habeas corpus for quashing the orders of detention under the National Security Act (No. XI 1980) (for shortthe Act).

(2.) The District Magistrate, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) detained the detenu under S. 3(2) of the Act vide order (Annexure-1) dated July 18, 1981. The order of detention was passed with a view to prevent the detenue from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds for detention alongwith annexures were served on the detenu vide Annexure-2 dated July 22, 1981. The State Government (Respondent No. 1) approved the order by its order (Annexure-3) dated July, 1981 under S. 3 (4) of the Act. The case of the detenue was referred to the Advisory Board and it was of the opinion that there t were sufficient reasons for the detention of the detenu, the State Government confirmed the detection order under S. 12(1) of the Act for a period of one year i.e., upto July 17, 1982 vide order (Annexure-5) dated Sept. 11, 1981. The petitioner has filed this petition for the release of the detenue Prem Narain and quashing the entire proceedings of his detention culminating into the order (Annexure-5) dated Sept. 11, 1981.

(3.) On Nov. 4, 1981, notice was issued to the State Government to file return and show cause as to why the detenu may not be released forthwith. On Nov. 29, 1981 the respondents filed a reply contesting the petition. In support of the reply affidavits of Shri Arvind Mayaram, Officer Incharge (City Magistrate, Jodhpur) and Shri Gopesh Bhatt, the then Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Jodhpur were filed. It was stated that the action taken under the provisions of the Act was wholly legal and justified and that there is no violation whatsoever of Art. 22 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that the detenu has a criminal record and was a continuing threat to the society by disturbing public order which could not have been prevented otherwise than by taking recourse to his preventive detention. It was also pleaded that the grounds of detention and the annexures accompanying it would reveal that the acts of the detenue were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On Dec. 9, 1981, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner filed the annexures (parishisthas) attached to the grounds of detention. They were taken on record as the learned Addl. Government Advocate had no objection.