GAZI KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this habeas corpus petition, has challenged the legality and the validity of the detention order dated 10-10-94 (Annexure. 3) passed by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, under Sec. 3 (2) and (3) of the National Secuity Act, as well as the order Annexure. 6 dated 30-11-94, passed by the State Government, by which the order Annexure.3, passed by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, was confirmed and the petitioner was ordered to be detained for a period of one year, i.e., with effect from 10-10-94 to 9-10-95.

(2.) The petitioner is a resident of Jaisalmer and is a citizen of India. He was found engaged in anti-national activities and, therefore, in order to refrain him to induge in anti-national and anti-social activities in future, the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, after his subjective satisfaction on the material available on record, thought it proper to order for the detention of the petitioner. The learned District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, therefore, on 10-10-94, passed the order Annexure.3 ordering for the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year, i.e..with effect from 10-10-94 to 9-10-95 as the activities of the petitioner, according to the detaining authority, were adversely affecting the national security and public administration. The order of detention, along with the grounds, was served upon the petitioner while he was in the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The detention order Annexure-3, passed by the detaining authority, was approved by the State Government on 17-10-94. The petitioner made a representation to the Advisory Board through the Jail Authority on 6-11-94. The meeting of the Advisory Board was to be held on 8-11-94 and, therefore, this representation made by the petitioner was sent to the advisory board by the Jail Authorities. The State Government placed all the relevant material before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board considered the representation made by the petitioner and the other material available on record and approved the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year. The State Government, thereafter, by its order dated 30-11-94, confirmed the detention of the petitioner for a period of one year, i.e., with effect from 10-10-94 to 9-10-95. The petitioner has challenged the order Annexure-3 passed by the detaining authority as well as the order Annexure.6 passed by the State Government confirming the detention order passed by the detaining authority, on the grounds that (i) the representation made by the petitioner was not considered by the State Government; and (ii) while passing the detention order, the detaining authority had taken into consideration the grounds which were the part of the grounds of detention of two previous detention orders which have been quashed and set-aside - one by the High Court and the other by the Supreme Court - and, therefore, the grounds of detention taken in those earlier detention orders should not have been considered while passing the present detention order Annexure.3. The detention order, passed by the detaining authority, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. The learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has supported the orders Annexure.3 and Annexure.6 passed by the detaining authority as well as confirmed by the State Government, respectively, and submitted that the representation was made by the petitioner to the Advisory Board and not to the State Government and, therefore, the State Government was not required to consider the representation made by him. in reply to the contention No.2 raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding consideration of the material, it has been argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that the earlier grounds of detention are not the sole grounds of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and those grounds have been mentioned as they were necessary to point-out the intecedents of the petitioner and apart from those grounds there are much more material available on the-record for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the detention order Annexure.3.

(3.) We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.