- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner was detained by order dated 20. 06. 2001 made by the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer u/sec. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. This order has been made by recording satisfaction that it is necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to security of the State. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on number of grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the petitioner has been served with grounds of detention dated 22. 6. 2001 only but the original order of detention dated 20. 06. 2001 and order of confirmation of detention order dated 26. 06. 2001, were not served on the detenue at all and order of confirmation has been passed without providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the detenue to make a representation before the State Government or the Board. In connection with this it was submitted by the petitioner that in the meeting of Advisory Board the petitioner's brother Sheru Khan has got a representation prepared through his lawyer. A request was made to the Jail Authorities at Jaipur in the High Court premises for giving the same to the detenue, but the same was turned down. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, vitiates the detention order being violative of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. A reply has been submitted by the respondents on being called upon to do so to the writ petition. In this it has been clearly asserted by the respondents that copy of the detention order dated 20. 06. 2001 was served on the petitioner on 21. 06. 2001 which has been accepted by him after understanding the same and the said copy retained by the respondents bears endorsement made by the petitioner thereon on 21. 06. 2001. A photostat copy of order bearing endorsement under the signatures of petitioner acknowledged receipt of the order after understood the same has been produced as Annexure-R1. It has also been stated in reply denying the petitioner's assertion that the order of detention was approved by the appropriate Govt. on 26. 06. 2001 and it was also served on the detenue petitioner on 27. 06. 2001 and receipt was also obtained in lieu of service of order dated 26. 06. 2001. The said receipt has been produced as Annexure-R3 along with the reply. There is no dispute even on petitioner's assertions that grounds of detention accorded by the Detaining Authority were duly served on the petitioner on 21. 06. 2002.
(3.) IN these circumstances from the averments made in the reply and documents furnished along therewith, which facts have not been denied by the petitioner, it must be held that the petitioner was duly served with the order of detention on 21. 6. 2001. The grounds of detention and order of approval were also served within reasonable time of its making and the order of detention cannot be vitiated on that ground. As a limb of the aforesaid contention on behalf of petitioner, it has further been submitted that the petitioner has not been supplied with legible documents along with the grounds of detention, which has vitally affected his right of making an effective representation against his detention. This assertion of the petitioner too is not well founded and cannot legitimately affect the detention order as Annexure-R2 submitted alongwith the reply shows that it contains endorsement under the signatures of petitioner that he has received grounds of detention order dated 22. 06. 2001 alongwith 30 Annexures on 23. 06. 2001 at the Central Jail, Jodhpur. The endorsement further states that details of the detention order were not only delivered to him, but were read over to him and he was made to understand the same in his own language and he has put his signature after hearing and clearly understanding the purport of those documents. It also bears the endorsement of Jail Superintendent that the details of detention grounds were read over and explained to the petitioner in his own language. Moreover, no complaint was raised about the illegibility of any document until filing of this petition by raising that ground about the illegibility of documents supplied to the petitioner nor any demand was made by the petitioner for supply of legible documents in order to enable him to make effective and appropriate representation against his detention. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused, even if it is be assumed for sake of argument that some of the documents may not have been easily readable. Yet merely because some of the documents annexed with grounds for detention, which were delivered to the detenue were illegible, by itself cannot vitiate the validity of detention order, unless it can be shown that any prejudice was caused to detenue because of supply of any illegible documents. Our attention was invited to a recent decision of this Court in Teja Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1) wherein the similar contention raised by the petitioner detenue was not countenanced when it was found that there was an endorsement on the receipt of the documents that the same has been received after reading and understanding the same. Moreso, when no demand for a copy of document which was alleged to be illegible was made and no objection for supply of said copies was raised at any earlier stage. In fact, the petition lacks singularly in details and particulars about the documents which are alleged to be illegible copies supplied to the petitioner. ;