Vivek Rusia, J. - (1.)With the consent of the parties heard finally.
The petitioner has filed this present petition through his father Babu Anand Nekiya challenging the validity of the order of detention dtd. 2/5/2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Indore in the exercise of powers under sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

1. The petitioner has been supplied the grounds for detention and according to which there would be a possibility of creating a dispute in relation to political and communal matters after release from jail on bail. Deputy Commissioner of Police Zone No.3, Indore vide letter dtd. 2/5/2022 requested District Magistrate, Indore for initiating detention proceedings against the petitioner on account of four criminal cases registered against him. The details are as under:-
JUDGEMENT_99_LAWS(MPH)6_2022_1.html
(2.)Along with the aforesaid letter, the Deputy Commissioner of Police has given the list of five witnesses to be examined in this matter against the petitioner. After drawing proceedings under sec. 3 of the National Security Act,1980 the District Magistrate has passed an order of detention without prescribing the period of detention. However, the petitioner has been given the right to submit a representation before the District Magistrate, Secretary Department of Home Govt. of India New Delhi, Secretary Home Department Govt. of M.P. Bhopal and Advisory Board.
(3.)Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has approached this court by way of a writ petition challenging the detention order inter alia on the ground that the provisions of sec. 3(2) of the National Security Act,1980 should be exercised in a very cautious manner and after granting the fair opportunity to the aggrieved person. The petitioner has not been convicted in any of the criminal cases. Out of four cases, two cases have been registered recently with the intention to initiate proceedings under National Security Act against him. The petitioner is the only earning member in the family and at the time of detention he was already in jail, therefore, there was no need to pass an order of detention in the apprehension of disturbance of public order. It is further submitted that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to live with dignity and freedom which has been taken away by the respondent by passing the impugned order with an ulterior motive. Hence the order is liable to be set aside.