Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THE instant Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner Poonam Chand Bhandu, uncle of detenu Tola Ram S/o. Kishana Ram, resident of Tilak Nagar, Bikaner against the order dated 2.6.2014 (Annex. 1) passed by the District Collector, Bikaner whereby the District Collector, Bikaner while exercising power under Section 3(1) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti -Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006 for short) passed an order of detention of detenu Tola Ram.
(2.) IN the writ petition, although so many grounds are raised by the petitioner, but the main ground is that the satisfaction recorded by the District Collector, Bikaner to treat detenu Tola Ram "dangerous person" deserves to be quashed because at the time of consideration of the matter, the District collector, Bikaner registration of 30 criminal cases against the detenu Tola Ram since Dec., 1993 to 17.1.2014, out of which in most of the cases, the detenu Tola Ram was either acquitted or discharged by the learned trial court after trial and compromise arrived at between the parties. Therefore, the ground for detention for one year of detenu Tola Ram is totally illegal and finding to treat him dangerous person who is creating law and order problem in the Bikaner District is contrary to the intention of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that Act of 2006 was enacted for preventive detention of boot -legers, dangerous persons, drug offenders, immoral traffic offenders and property grabbers for preventing their antisocial and dangerous activities, but according to the material which is taken into consideration for detention of the detenu Tola Ram, it cannot be said that the case of detenu Tola Ram falls in any of the category for the purpose of detention of one year because the Section 3 of the Act of 2006 provides that District Collector can exercise its powers but those powers are required to be delegated to the District Collector by the State Government after recording satisfaction that it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preventive measure, but in this case, the delegation of power to the District Collector, Bikaner under Section 3 is totally without jurisdiction because satisfaction recorded by the State Government for the purpose of delegating the power under Section 3 to the District Collector is totally against the record and the basic principle of law. Therefore, the order of detention of the detenu Tola Ram deserves to be quashed.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since 2.6.2014, the detenu Tola Ram is in custody for no reason, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed.;