SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner seeks to quash the order dated May 11, 2005 of the District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur detaining the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 which was enacted to tackle the law and order situation in the country in a most determined and effective way.
(2.) COMING to the scheme of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 1980 Act), we notice that the State Government has to send its report in regard to detention order to the Central Government. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of 1980 Act reads as under:- " When any order is made or approved by the State Government under this section, the State Government, shall, within seven days, report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in the opinion of the State Government, have a bearing on the necessity for the order. " A detention order may be revoked or modified at any time under Section 14 of the 1980 Act which provides thus:- " 14. Revocation of detention orders.- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified,- (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of section 3, by the State Government to which that officer is subordinate or by the Central Government; (b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by a State Government, by the Central Government. (2) The expiry or revocation of a detention order (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as the earlier detention order) shall not [whether such earlier detention order has been made before or after the commencement of the National Security (Second Amendment) Act, 1984] bar the making of another detention order (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as the subsequent detention order) under section 3 against same person: Provided that in a case where no fresh facts have arisen after the expiry or revocation of the earlier detention order made against such person, the maximum period for which such person may be detained in pursuance of the subsequent detention order shall, in no case, extent beyond the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of detention under the earlier detention order. " It is necessary to place the case where detention order is made before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the 1980 Act which provides thus: " 10. Reference to Advisory Board.-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the appropriate Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section 3 of section 3, also the report by such officer under sub-section (4) of that section. " At this juncture reference of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India appears necessary which provides that when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. The petitioner through his Counsel made representation against his detention order to the President of India which was received in the Secretariat of the President of India and the same was sent to Ministry of Law and Justice vide Pres. Sectt. 's letter No. 10 (37/2005-P (I), dated June 10, 2005 and it was further forwarded to Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs on August 8, 2005.
(3.) THE respondent Union of India did choose to file affidavit of Ms. Rita Dogra, Under Secretary, Ministry of Human Affairs to the effect that a report as envisaged under Section 3 (5) of 1980 Act about the detention of the petitioner was made by the Government of Rajasthan to the Central Government which was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on May 24, 2005. THE position was noted by the concerned Director authorised under Section 3 (5) It is further stated that as per provisions of Section 8, the petitioner on receipt of grounds of detention had right to make representation to the Government of Rajasthan and not to the Central Government. The respondents State Government, District Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur and Superintendent of Police, Sawai Madhopur in their return stated that the activities of the petitioner disturbed the public order, therefore, it was necessary to detain him under the 1980 Act and the impugned order was passed on considering the relevant record and after being subjectively satisfied. Therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected. We have pondered over the submissions advanced before us. ;