- (1.) THE District Magistrate, Pratapgarh under an order 23.3.2012 detained Bablu @ Jitendra son of Daya Shanker Joshi for a period of one year by exercising power under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2006"). The authority to detain a person in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2006 was acquired by the District Magistrate in pursuant to a Government of Rajasthan notification dated 17.1.2012, passed while exercising powers under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the State Government while exercising powers under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006 has not at all taken into consideration necessary material to arrive at a conclusion that such delegation of powers is necessary looking to the prevailing circumstances and the circumstances likely to prevail.
(2.) THE respondents have made available the material on basis of which decision was taken to delegate the powers under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006 to the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. From perusal of all the notings it reveals that as a matter of fact the District Magistrate communicated certain individual facts pertaining to one Shri Chunnu @ Imran Khan, resident of Nogawa, Police Station Arnod, District Pratapgarh and Bablu @ Sarafat Khan, resident of Nogawa, Police Station Arnod, District Pratapgarh. On basis of the facts communicated a noting was drawn and the matter was placed before the Assistant Legal Remembrance for opinion. The Assistant Legal Remembrance without considering the prevailing circumstances and the circumstances likely to prevail in District Pratapgarh made an opinion to make necessary delegation in favour of the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh as per provisions of Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006. The Special Secretary (Home Affairs) and further higher executive authorities put their signatures ipse-dixit just below the opinion given by the Legal Remembrance. Accordingly, the notification dated 17.1.2012 was issued. This Court in DBCivil Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No.6123/2012, Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., decided on 27.8.2012, examined effect of such consideration and held as under:- "No Indian citizen can be arrested and detained without being told the grounds for such arrest. It is only under preventive detention laws the State can imprison a person without a criminal charge on being satisfied that the liberty of such a person may be a threat to the public order or to the unity and integrity of the nation. By such detention a possible harm to the nation or the society at large may be prevented, but in any case such a power being an exception to a democratic system must be exercised with great care and caution. The State must understand that a little casualness on its part in exercising powers under preventive detention laws, such as the Act of 2006 may cause a huge casualty to a citizen as well as to the democratic and human values enshrined in our Constitution. In the instant matters the State failed to act in accordance with the law to exercise powers under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006, thus, the mechanical and casual exercise of power by it is apparent." The factual position in the instant case is not at all different with the facts adjudicated in the case of Kishan Singh (supra). Accordingly, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, hence allowed. The Government of Rajasthan notification dated 17.1.2012 bearing No.F.36 (2)Home-9/2012 is quashed. The detention order dated 23.3.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh in pursuant to the notification aforesaid too is quashed. The consequential order passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Home Affairs (Disaster Management) dated 7.6.2012 too is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the petitioner forthwith, if not otherwise required in some other case.;