ROSHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality of the order of detention dated 2/10/1992, passed by the District Magistrate, Banner, and the order Annexure 7, passed by the State Government confirming the order dated 2-10-92, by which the District Magistrate, Barmer, ordered for the detention of the petitioner as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the "State" and it was, therefore, found necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in such manner.

(2.) The facts, which necessitated the Detaining Authority to order for the detention of the petitioner and to pass the impugned order dated 2-10-92, are that as per the confidential reports of the Military Intelligence, Barmer, dated 5-5-92 and 1-10-92, and the reports dated 1-10-92, 11-10-92 and 14-1-92 of the Border Security Force, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in the espionage activities and supplying important strategical informations to the Pakistan Secret Intelligence Agencies and is working as an agent of F.U.I. Looking into the various reports of the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the Border Security Force, the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, the District Special Force as well as the History-sheet of the petitioner maintained at Police Station, Gadra Road, and the Special Officer, Chautan and the Village Crime Book of village Khalefe Ki Babad, the District Magistrate, Barmer, was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, his detention is necessary and issued the order Annexure 1 ordering the detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The order of detention Annexure. 1 was served on the petitioner on 2-10-92, and he was arrested and detained in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. On 4-10-92, Grounds of Detention Annexure. 2, alongwith the Village Crime Book (Annexure. 3) were served upon the petitioner so that the petitioner, if so likes, may make the representation. The petitioner, after receipt of the Grounds of Detention, made his representation on 30-10-92, to the Jail Authorities. The representation made by the petitioner was sent to the Detaining Authority, to the State Government as well as to the Central Government. The District Magistrate, Barmer, after the receipt of the representation, sent the same alongwith his opinion and parawise comments to the State Government. The representation of the petitioner was considered by the State Government on 4-11-92. The order of detention, passed by the Detaining Authority, was approved and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the State Government. The Advisory Board, also, considered the representation of the petitioner and the relevant materials regarding the detention of the petitioner produced before it and approved the detention made by the Detaining Authority. After the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board by the State Government, the State Government confirmed the detention order passed by the Detaining Authority and ordered for the detention of the petitioner from 2-10-92 to 1-10-93. The representation, filed by the petitioner, was, also, dismissed by the Central Government. The order of detention dated 2-10-92 (Annexure. 1), passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, as well as the order dated 24-10-92 (Annexure. 7) confirming the order of detention and ordering the detention of the petitioner for one year, i.e. since 2-10-92 to 1-10-93 have been challenged by the petitioner on three grounds, namely, (i) that there has been considerable delay in considering the representation filed by the petitioner by the Central Government, infringing the rights of the petitioner, granted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, (ii) 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; and (iii) 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.

(3.) The learned Additional Advocate General as well as the learned counsel for the Union of India have supported the order of detention passed by the Detaining Authority and confirmed by the State Government.