GULIA ALIAS GULSHER Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these petitions raise similar points and therefore were heard together and are being decided together by this common Order.

(2.) IN D. B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 3429/95, petitioner Gulia @ Gulsher was detained earlier in the year 1992 under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act which was ultimately revoked on the basis of Advisory Board's report. The petitioner was again detained by the Order of the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer on August 13, 1995 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short `the Act' hereinafter ). This Order was based on a complaint dated August 13,1995 lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer and the order was approved by the State Government on August 23,1995. The petitioner's case was considered by the Advisory Board on September 14, 1995 but it appears that it did not recommend revocation of the Order of detention. The petitioner has challenged his detention order on the ground that it has been mechanically passed on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police of the same date without proper application of mind. That certain cases in which the petitioner was acquitted had been taken into consideration while passing the second detention order without taking into account the fact of acquittal in those cases, that the ground of detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances Act earlier and the grounds of detention of the impugned Order were substantially the same and the Detaining Authority could not have passed an order relying on the grounds which have not found favour with the Advisory Board in the earlier case, that the material documents referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority were not supplied to the petitioner, that the petitioner was not informed that he could make representation to the Detaining Authority also which deprived him from making an effective representation to the Detaining Authority, that the petitioner was not allowed to engage the services of a friend to argue his case before the Advisory Board when the respondents were represented by a large number of senior officers including Additional Superintendent of Police which prejudiced the petitioner's case and that the grounds of detention are vague and general.

(3.) IN Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar vs. N. L. Kalna & Ors. (3), in paragraph-12, it was observed as follows: ``it emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronounce- ments that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the Court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the Court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule it nullifies the entire order. ''