BHOOR SINGH Vs. DIST MAGISTRATE BARMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus petition, has chal lenged the legality of the order dated 2/10/1992 (Annexure 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, under S. 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') by which the learned District Magistrate, Barmer, after being satisfied that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the security of the 'State', ordered for his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The petitioner has, also, challenged the order of confirmation Annexure 8 dated 26-11-92, passed by the Government of Rajasthan, confirming the order of detention Annexure 1 passed by the Detaining Authority, i.e., the District Magistrate, Barmer.

(2.) The facts which necessitated the District Magistrate, Barmer, to pass the order Annexure-1 to 2-10-92, are that the activities of the petitioner are prejudicial to the security of the State. As per the confidential report received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the detenu Bhoor Singh was found to be engaged in espoinage. He was, also, found engaged in the smuggling activities; he collects information from India and transmits/passes it to the Secret Agencies of Pakistan and he is an active agent of Pakistani Secret Agencies. He worked in collaboration with one Sheru (R/o. Pakistan) - an F.I.U. agent of Pakistan. The detenu used to supply secret/confidential strategic informations to this Sheru. He is, also, a history sheeter of Police Station, Ramsar, and is involved in smuggling activities and is, also, passing the important/secret information to the Pakistan's Secret Agencies. The petitioner was arrested and was detained in the Central Jail, Jodhpur, on 2-10-92, and the order of detention was served on him on 2-10-92. On 4-10-92, the petitioner-detenu was, also, served with the Grounds of Detention Annexure-2. Along with the Grounds of Detention, the particulars of the History-sheet of the petitioner entered in the Village Crime Book, maintained by the S.H.O., Police Station, Ramsar, were also supplied to the petitioner in support of the allegations mentioned in the Grounds Nos. 3 and 4. So far as the confidential reports dated 15-5-92 and 1-10-92 of the Military Intelligence, Barmer, as well as the monthly confidential reports dated 7-1-92, 9-10-92, 21-12-89 and 3-3-84, showing the activities of the petitioner, supplying the information to Pakistani Secret Agencies, were not supplied to him as they were confidential documents and their disclosure was against the public interest. The petitioner, after receipt of the Grounds of Detention, on 13-10-92, sent four copies of the representation to the District Magistrate, Barmer. This representation was addressed to the District Magistrate, Barmer, and to the Home Secretary. The District Magistrate, Barmer, forwarded the representation under S. 3(4) of the Act for consideration to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, along with his opinion and parawise comments on 15-10-92. The State Government considered the representation of the petitioner and by its order dated 24-10-92, rejected the same. The matter was also considered by the Advisory Board after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Advisory Board, also approved the detention of the petitioner in its meeting held on 2/11/1992.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order on six grounds, namely, (i) that the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority is mala fide, (ii) that in the meeting before the Advisory Board, certain extraneous materials have been supplied by the Detaining Authority to the Members of the Advisory Board and the same were considered by the Advisory Board, which vitiates the detention order; (iii) that the grounds of detention are vague and insufficient and the necessary details of the charges, on which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based, was not supplied to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner from making an effective representation; (iv) proper opportunity to represent his case before the Advisory Board was not given to the petitioner as he was informed regarding the meeting of the Advisory Board only a day before; (v) the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered by the Detaining Authority, who was bound to consider the same and the non-consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority has resulted in the failure of justice, which invalidates the detention of the petitioner; and (vi) that there was a long and inordinate delay in sending the representation for consideration to the Central Government, which delayed the consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government. The learned Additional Advocate General and the Senior Central Government's Standing Counsel Mr. U. S. Bhargava, on the other hand, have supported the detention order passed by the respondent No. 1 and submitted that the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any infirmity as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Detaining Authority is neither mala fide nor was there any delay in consideration of the representation sent by the petitioner to the Central Government. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, even the representation was not required to be sent for consideration to the Central Government as it was only the 'appropriate government' which has to consider the same. Regarding the consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority, it is submitted that the representation was duly considered by the District Magistrate, who after consideration, gave its opinion and parawise comments and forwarded the same for consideration to the appropriate government. It was, also, submitted that the proper details of the charges were supplied to the petitioner and the grounds supplied cannot be said to be vague or insufficient. The confidential reports could not be supplied to the petitioner as their disclosure is against the public interest.