SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner who has been detained under the provisions of National Security Act, 1980 (in short NSA) has approached this Court through his mother Smt. Kesuli seeking quashing of the detention order.
(2.) AS per the averments made in the writ petition the petitioner and his brothers have been declared as trespassers over the agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 1236 measuring 18 Bighas and 2 Biswas by the revenue authorities. During the pendency of the litigation about the said land the police authorities registered false criminal cases against the petitioner and his brother. The brother of the petitioner namely Tej Singh was detained by the respondents 2 and 3 under the provisions of NSA for a period of one year and he has been released on 28.8.2001. While the period of one year of the preventive detention of aforesaid Tej Singh was about to expire the police authorities hatched up a conspiracy to initiate the proceedings under the NSA against the petitioner also and a false case was registered against him and one Deep Chand Meena under Section 399/402, IPC at Police Station, Masalpur District Karauli. The petitioner was arrested in the said case and vide order dated 31.8.2001 the respondent No. 3 was directed to detain the petitioner in Central Jail, Jaipur. While detaining the petitioner under the provisions of the NSA, copy of the order passed under Section 3(2) of the NSA was not supplied to him. The petitioner was however supplied the grounds of detention after the expiry of 10 days. The State Government approved the order of detention vide communication dated 5.9.2001 and the matter was referred to the Advisory Board. The mother of the petitioner submitted representation to the various authorities on 29.9.2001. The Advisory Board approved the detention of the petitioner and the State Government vide order dated 25.10.2001 passed the final order under Section 12 of the NSA and thereby kept the petitioner in detention for a period of one year i.e. 31.8.2001 to 30.8.2002. The representation submitted by the mother of the petitioner was rejected after much delay which was unexplained. The respondents in their reply averred that the petitioner has been rightly detained by invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the NSA by the competent authority. The allegation of lodging false cases against the petitioner and his family was denied. It has been further averred that not only the petitioner has been regularly indulging in commission of offences punishable under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, but also his brother Tej Singh is involved in as many as 22 criminal cases of varied nature. The circumstances had come to such that his brother Tej Singh had to be detained under NSA by passing a similar order on 28.8.2000. The habeas corpus petition bearing No. 44/2001 filed challenging the detention of Tej singh was rejected by this Court on 20.4.2001. It was also averred in the reply that the petitioner and one Deep Chand Meena were caught red handed on spot and FIR No. 92/2001 was registered against them at the police Station, Masalpur. The petitioner was served with the copy of the order of detention dated 31.8.2001 on the same day through Deputy Superintendent District Jail, Karauli. The photostat copy of the order dated 31.8.2001 on which the petitioner put his signatures in token of receiving the order and the report of SHO concerned to the effect that copy of the order was served on Tikam Singh in presence of Deputy Superintendent of District Jail, Karuali was enclosed with the reply. The grounds of detention containing as many as five pages and documents running into 107 pages were duly supplied to the petitioner with letter dated 1.9.2001. The receipt given by the petitioner was enclosed with the reply. The order of the District Magistrate dated 31.8.2001 detaining the petitioner was approved by the State Government vide order dated 5.9.2001. The detention of the petitioner was duly reported to the Central Government through a special messenger and the same was received by the Central Government on 6.9.2001. The representation dated 29.9.2001 submitted by the mother of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government on 29.1.2002 and by the Central Government on 22.10.2001. The Advisory Board gave its report on 3.10.2001 and the State Government passed the confirmation order detaining the petitioner on 25.10.2001. It was further averred in the reply that all the eleven cases pending against the petitioner relate to the offences of robbery, theft, attack on police party and Government employee, for possessing illegal arms and illegal wines under the Indian Arms Act and Excise Act. The Advisory Board also noted in its report that the cases were registered against the petitioner in the year 1994, 1996 and 1999 pertaining attack on police party. The Advisory Board opined in the report that the cases registered against the petitioner were not isolated incidents, but showed a consistent pattern and that he was causing serious threat to social peace and tranquillity by affecting public order. The Advisory Board however did not find sufficient reason for approving the detention of Deep Chand Meena and proceedings against him were dropped.
(3.) WE have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record. The first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was in Jail on the date of passing of the impugned detention order on 31.8.2001. Therefore it was incumbent on the detaining authority while passing order under Section 3(2) of the NSA to have considered and mentioned in the order itself in case the detenu was detained under the provisions of NSA and there was likelihood of his being released on bail. Reliance is placed on Amrit Lal v. Union of India, ((2001) 1 SCC 341 and Binod Singh v. D.M. Dhanbad : 1986CriLJ1959 .;