PREM KANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Prem Kanwar being the wife of Shri Surendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenue' for short) has approached this Court for assailing the order dtd. 4/6/2018 (Annex.3) whereby the detenue was placed under detention for a period of one year from the date of his initial arrest by resorting to the provisions of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti- Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2006' for short).

(2.) Facts in brief are that the detenue is alleged to be a history- sheeter residing in the village Novi P.S. Sumerpur, District Pali. An earlier order of detention dtd. 3/2/2012 came to be passed against the detenue by the learned District Magistrate, Pali with reference to numerous criminal cases registered against him. The detenue challenged the said order of detention passed against him through his brother Jaspal Singh by filing D.B. Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No. 5118/2012 (Jaspal Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.) which was decided by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by order dtd. 27/8/2012 holding that the notification authorizing the District Magistrates to exercise powers under the Act were issued by the State Government without being satisfied that such powers should be conferred upon the District Magistrates concerned under Sec. 3(1) of the Act of 2006. Accordingly, the order of detention passed against the detenue Shri Surendra Singh was quashed vide judgment dtd. 27/8/2012. It appears that after the order of detention was quashed, the detenue was again found indulged in criminal activities and no sooner, he was released on bail, the District Magistrate, Pali proceeded to pass a fresh order of detention dtd. 3/5/2018 against the detenue with reference to the cases previously registered against him and in addition thereto, some more cases which came to be registered against him in the intervening period. The detention was sponsored by the Superintendent of Police, Pali and the District Magistrate, Pali, expressing satisfaction with the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police, Pali, proceeded to pass the order dtd. 3/5/2018 (Annex.2) in exercise of the powers under Sec. 3 (1) (2) of the Act of 2006 whereby the detenue was directed to be detained at Central Jail, Jodhpur. The matter of the detenue was placed before the advisory board who recommended affirmation of the detention order and pursuant thereto, the State Government confirmed the detention of the detenue for a period of one year from the date of his detention vide order dtd. 4/6/2018 (Annex.3). The petitioner, being the wife of the detenue Shri Surendra Singh has approached this Court by way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for assailing the order of detention passed against the detenue.

(3.) Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently and fervently urged that the detention of the detenue Surendra Singh vide order of detention dtd. 3/5/2018 (Annex.2) confirmed vide order dtd. 4/6/2018 (Annex.3) is grossly illegal, arbitrary and perverse and rather amounts to a contempt of this Court's Judgment dtd. 27/8/2012 passed in the earlier round of detention. He submitted that the earlier detention order issued against the detenue virtually on the same grounds which form the basis of the present detention order, was quashed by the High Court by exercising its high prerogative writ jurisdiction and thus, it was highly arbitrary and highhanded for the detaining authority to have used the very same grounds for passing a fresh order of detention against the detenue. He further urged that the order of detention suffers from gross non- application of mind to material facts inasmuch as the detaining authority failed to consider the important circumstance that the detenue was in custody for a period of almost three years before the detention order came to be issued. There was no material to show that during this period of three years, the detenue acted in any manner which could be considered as being prejudicial to public order. He further urged that the requisite satisfaction in terms of Sec. 3 of the Act of 2006 is totally lacking from the order of detention and as such, the same is liable to be struck down.