KANTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner Kanta Devi praying for quashment of order dated 27.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar for preventive detention of her husband, Om Prakash @ Jeevan Ram son of Boduram, by caste Jat resident of Baral, Police Station Ranoli, District Sikar as also order dated 15/16th November, 2017 passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government, Department of Home (Disaster Management) , Jaipur under Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act') , confirming the aforementioned order of preventive detention of Om Prakash @ Jeevan Ram for a period of one year up to 27.09.2018.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Sikar passed the order of preventive detention of petitioner's husband on 27.09.2017, information of which was given to him by Superintendent of Central Jail, Bikaner where he was lodged with its forwarding letter dated 14.10.2017 conveying about meeting of the Advisory Board. Said order was initially approved by the State Government on 06.10.2017. Thereafter, meeting was scheduled to be held on 24.10.2017 at 4.30 P.M. in the Conference Room in the premises of this Court at Jaipur which the petitioner's husband was informed that he could also join through video conference and produce any material he wanted to do. On receiving recommendation of Advisory Board, the Government issued order dated 15/16th November, 2017 confirming the order of preventive detention of petitioner's husband on the basis of report of the Advisory Board.

(3.) Mr. Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that impugned order of preventive detention dated 27.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar has been confirmed by the State Government without due application of mind. The District Magistrate, while passing the aforesaid order, has acted in an arbitrary manner, which is reflected from sequence of the proceedings mentioned in the order itself that he received letter/request from the Superintendent of Police, Sikar on 27.09.2017 and it is on that very day that the order of preventive detention of petitioner's husband was passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar. District Magistrate has, thus, acted in an unprecedented haste in passing the impugned order. Voluminous record of 300 pages could not have been examined by the District Magistrate, Sikar on the same day. This clearly shows that there was no application of mind. He has signed on the dotted lines and it was not possible for him to pass 10 pages order of preventive detention on the same day, after making proper application of mind. This proves that the District Magistrate, Sikar acted in a pre-determined and biased manner. It is argued that fundamental right of life and personal liberty of a citizen guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India should not be violated in a slipshod manner. There was no material with the District Magistrate, Sikar to conclude that mere involvement of the petitioner's husband in some crimes, most of which were ordinary crimes, would have the effect of disturbing public order and tempo of the society. This was an ordinary law and order problem and could be tackled under the ordinary laws.