MAHENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus, assailing the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar approved by the State Government and Advisory Board.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Sikar on the basis of the material and report submitted before it by the Superintendent of Police, Sikar, recorded satisfaction that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to direct detention of the petitioner. In exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006"), the District Magistrate passed the order of preventive detention for a period of one year on 13/6/2022. Vide order dtd. 13/6/2022, the State Government granted approval to the order in exercise of its powers under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 3 of the Act of 2006. Vide memo dtd. 28/6/2022, the Government of Rajasthan forwarded the order of detention dtd. 13/6/2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar along with grounds of detention to the Chairperson of the Advisory Board, PASA at Jaipur. Thereafter, the detenue was produced before the Advisory Board on 27/7/2022 through video conferencing and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/detenue and perusal of record produced before it, the Advisory Board submitted its report in terms of provisions contained in Sec. 11 of the Act of 2006 recording its opinion that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner-detenue and thereby confirmed the detention. After receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government vide order dtd. 1/9/2022 directed detention of the petitioner for a period of one year w.e.f. 13/6/2022.

(3.) The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of detention, confirmation by the Advisory Board and approved by the State Government has filed this petition. Assailing legality and validity of the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends before us that the detention is illegal and unsustainable in law on account of violation of provisions contained in Secs. 9 & 11 as also Sec. 14 of the Act of 2006.