RAM CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition, for the grant of a writ of habeas corpus, has beet presented by Ramchander, father of the detenu Achal Singh, by caste Rawana Rajput resident of Mahron-ka-Chowk, Jodhpur, seeking the lattess release.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Jodhpur, made an order on July 19, 1981, purporting to exercise his powers under Sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short; the NS Act hereinafter). The order was made in pursuance of the order of the State Government dated May 19, 1981. The detenu surrendered on July 13, 1981 and has been detained in Central Jail, Jodhpur. The State Government approved the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate on July 29, 1981, The District Magistrate, by his communication dated Aug. 1, 1981, dispatched memorandum to the detenu enclosing the grounds of detention and documents on the basis of which the detenu has been detained under the NS Act. The matter was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board to consider the case of the detention of detenu under the NS Act and the Board opined that there are sufficient reasons to detain the detenu under the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under Sec. 12 (1) of the Act, confirmed the detention order by its order dated Sept. 11, 1981 and it has been directed under Sec. 13 of the NS Act that the detenu be detained upto July 29, 1982. The father of the detenu preferred a representation but to no effect.

(3.) The detention of the detenu has been challenged on various grounds, namely, (i) that the prosecution of the detenu for the various incidents forming the grounds of detention of the detenu under the NS Act are pending in various courts and, therefore, parallel proceedings by detaining the detenu under the NS Act cannot continue; (ii) that the grounds narrated in memorandum annexed to Anx. I are far fetched and have no real and proximate connection or relevancy, for detention of the detenu and the grounds relate to "law and order" and not to "public order" and, therefore, could not furnish grounds for his detention under the provisions of the NS Act; and (iii) that many of the grounds are not relevant, proximate; and are stale and suffer from the vice of vegueness and even a single vague or irrelevant ground is sufficient to vitiate the detention.