B.R.ARORA,J. - (1.) THE petitioner, by this Habeas Corpus Petition, has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of detention dated 2.10.92, passed by the District Magistrate, Barmer, by which the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the State and, therefore, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the 'State', he was ordered to be detained in Central Jail, Jodhpur.
(2.) THE facts which necessitated the Detaining Authority to pass the order on 2.10.92 ordering for the detention of the petitioner, are that from the confidential reports dated 15.5.92 and 1.10.92, received from the Military Intelligence, Barmer, the petitioner was found engaged in espionage and an active agent of Pakistan's Secret Agency F.I.U. In the confidential report dated 22.4.92 of B.S.F., Barmer, the petitioner was found crossing borders and going to Pakistan casually without any valid passport. The petitioner was, also, a History -sheeter of Police Station, Gadra Road, which is clear from the Village Crime Book maintained at Police Station. As per the reports of the Station House Officer, Police Station, Gadra Road, dated 9.10.87, 11.3.88, 6.7.92, 10.3.92, 17.3.92. 8.9.92 and 2.7.92, also, the petitioner was found engaged in espionage activities since 1985. He used to cross International Borders without any valid Passport and has contacts with the Pakistan's Intelligence Agencies and passes -on the secret strategic informations to Pakistan's Secret Agencies and in exchange is getting gold and silver. As the petitioner was found engaged in the espionage activities and supplying important strategic informations to the Secret Intelligences of Pakistan, the District Magistrate, Barmer, on the basis of the materials available with him and on the informations received by him, passed an order for detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Jodhpur, in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State as his activities were found prejudicial to the security of the State. After his detention in the Central Jail, Jodhpur, he was supplied with the Grounds of Detention (Annexure. 2) alongwith the copies of Village Crime Book of village Tamlore, maintained by the Station House Officer, Police Station. Gadra Road, relating to the History sheet of the petitioner (Annexure. 3). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the detention order on five grounds, namely, (i) that while passing the order for detention dated 2.10.92, the Detaining Authority has taken into consideration the incident relating to 12.9.88 mentioned in the History -sheet, which was a ground of earlier detention and the order of detention on that ground was set -aside and the second order on this very ground cannot be made; (ii) that the grounds of detention are vague and insufficient and the necessary details of the charges, on which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was based, was not supplied to the petitioner, which has deprived the petitioner from making an effective representation; (iii) proper opportunity to represent his case before the Advisory Board was not given to the petitioner as he was informed regarding the meeting of the Advisory Board only a day before; (iv) the representation filed by the petitioner was not considered by the Detaining Authority, who was bound to consider the same and the non -consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority has resulted in the failure of justice which invalidates the detention of the petitioner; and (v) that there was a long and inordinate delay in sending the representation for consideration to the Central Government, which delayed the consideration of the petitioner's representation by the Central Government. The learned Additional Advocate General and the Central Government's Standing Counsel Mr. U.S. Bhargava, on the other hand have supported the detention order passed by the respondent No. 1 and submitted that the order of detention passed by the respondent No. 1 does not suffer from any infirmity as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Detaining Authority is neither malafide nor was there any delay in consideration of the representation sent by the petitioner to the Central Government. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, even the representation was not required to be sent for consideration to the Central Government as it was only the 'appropriate government' which has to consider the same. Regarding the consideration of the representation by the Detaining Authority, it is submitted that the representation was duly considered by the District Magistrate, who after consideration, gave its opinion and parawise comments and forwarded the same for consideration to the appropriate government. It was, also, submitted that the proper details of the charges were supplied to the petitioner and the grounds supplied cannot be said to be vague or insufficient. The confidential reports could not be supplied to the petitioner as their disclosure is against the public interest.
(3.) NOW , we will examine each of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner -detenu and will see whether the impugned detention is vitiated for any of the aforesaid reasons?;