- (1.) IN this Habeas Corpus writ petition, the petitioner Babu Singh, resident of village Unda, Police Station Sangath, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer is challenging the validity of impugned orders Annex.1, 2 and 3 passed by the District Collector and the State Government under the provisions of Rajasthan Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short).
(2.) AS per brief facts of the case, the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer while considering 14 criminal cases registered against the petitioner from Oct., 2012 to 7th Nov., 2014 under various Sections of IPC alongwith Section 136 of the Electricity Act passed an order of detention on 11th Nov., 2014 and communicated the same while incorporating the reasons to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board in which while giving notice to the petitioner on 28th Nov., 2014 the petitioner was granted an opportunity to file representation against the order of detention.
(3.) THE petitioner appeared before the Advisory Board and filed his representation but Advisory Board after hearing the petitioner gave its opinion that detention of the petitioner is necessary on the basis of entire evidence and held that there exist sufficient material for detention of the detenue, therefore, confirm the order of detention for the maximum period given under the Act of 2006. The said opinion was given by the Advisory Board on 3.12.2014, thereafter, the State Government passed an order Annex.3 dated 23.12.2014 whereby the petitioner was detained for one year w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to 11.11.2015. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of detention passed by the Collector as well as by the State Government on the ground that no reasons are incorporated in the order for recording satisfaction of the respondents that detention of the petitioner is necessary in public interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006, the District Magistrate after due satisfaction as provided under sub -Section (1) can exercise powers conferred under Section 3 so as to pass detention order but in the present case, the order dated 11th Nov., 2014 has been passed without recording reasons and recording finding of satisfaction by the District Magistrate as required under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2006, therefore, the order which is passed in mechanical manner deserves to be quashed.;