MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitions involving similar facts and common issues were ordered to be tagged together and were heard simultaneously, and hence this common order is being passed. For the sake of convenience the facts of petition No. 108/12 are referred to, which are identical to the facts of petition No. 109/12.

(2.) The petitioner Manohar Lal (the detenu) has been detained pursuant to the order dated 21.11.11 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No.2 in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Section 3(2) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and has been sent to the jail at Chittorgarh. It was mentioned in the said order that on having been satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, the said order was passed. The petitioner was served with the said order alongwith the annexures, in which seven cases were shown to have been registered against him. The petitioner thereafter had submitted a representation on 30.11.2011 to the respondent No.1 bringing to its notice interalia that out of the seven cases shown pending against the petitioner by the respondent No. 2 in the order dated 21.11.11, he has already been discharged in criminal case No. 10/11 by the competent court and that the case bearing No. 193/11, for the alleged offence under Section 160 of IPC did not fall under Chapter-XVI and XVII of IPC and even otherwise no charge-sheet was filed in the said case. It was also mentioned in the representation interalia that there was non-application of mind on the part of the respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order and that the same was passed with the malafide intention. The said representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.1 vide order dated 7.12.11 (Annex-5) by a non-speaking order.

(3.) The petitioner therefore, being aggrieved by the said order, had preferred a habeas corpus petition being No. 19/2012 before this court. However, in the reply to the said petition it was stated by the respondents interalia that the Advisory Board had already confirmed the orders dated 21.11.11 and 7.12.11 passed by the respondents under Section 11 of the said Act. The said petition, therefore, was disposed of by the court vide order dated 30.4.12 granting the petitioner liberty to file fresh petition challenging the order/opinion passed by the Advisory Board. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 21.11.11 (Annex.1), the order dated 7.12.11 (Annex.5), the order/opinion dated 8.12.11 (Annex.6) and the order dated 16.1.12 (Annex.7), and has sought the directions against the respondents to release the petitioner immediately from the jail.