S.S.Byas. J. - (1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of the order (Annexure 1) dated January 7, 1987 of the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer, by which his brother Kishan Singh has been detained under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as (the Act) in Central Jail, Jodhpur.
(2.) As per averments disclosed in the petition, the detenu Kishan Singh was arrested at Jaisalmer on January 6, 1987 and was thereafter lodged in the Central Jail, Jodhpur on January 7, 1987. On January 15, 1987 the detenu was communicated the grounds of his detention alongwith the documents Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. The grounds communicated to him were that he was constantly visiting Pakistan in illegal manner for last four or five years; he was transmitting the secret information relating to the security of the Country to Pakistani agents and was indulging in spying and espionage activities which posed a threat to the security of the country. The documents supplied to the detenu are Annexure-3 and Annexure-4. Annexure-3 dated January 5. 1987 is the communication addressed to the District Magistrate by the. Superintendent of Police Jaisalmer and Annexure-4 dated October 17, 1984 is a report recorded by the Circle Officer of Police, Jaisalmer containing the fact that 41 bales of cloth were found buried in the sand dunes. It was further mentioned in Annexure-4 that the detenu and one Bhagiya were suspected to have smuggled these bales from Pakistan, The petitioner made representation to the State and his case was put before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act. The detention order was however, approved by the, State Government and the Advisory Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
(3.) In challenging the detention, the grounds urged before us by Mr. Purohit are: (1) that the grounds furnished to the petitioner in support of the order of detention are wholly vague and laconic because of want of particulars. The essential facts, particulars and materials, on which the subjective satisfaction is to be formed by the detaining authority have not been disclosed in the grounds of detention (Annexure-2) Annexure-2 discloses only the conclusions arrived at by the detaining authority and not the facts, particulars and materials, on which subjective satisfaction is to be based under section 3(2) of the Act. This refrained the detenu to make an effective representation against his detention; (2) the detention order was passed on extraneous consideration. One Mr. Anil Khanna was appointed as the Superintendent of Police when Mr. Lalit Pawar was posted as the District Magistrate, Jaisalmer. Mr. Ann Khanna won laurels for his actions in putting an end to the borders smuggling activities. The District Magistrate wanted to win the same laurels for himself. As a result, the district-wide crack-down was launched and as many as thirty-five persons were netted and swooped in January. 1987 by the District Magistrate in order to achieve his object. The detention of the detenu thus, based on extraneous circumstances, is bad; and (3) the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu on January 16, 1981 that is after more than five days of the day he was arrested and detained. No reasons were communicated by him for not furnishing the grounds of detention within five days. This prevented him from making an effective representation against his illegal detention. The grounds now stated by the State for not communicating the reasons of his detention to the detenu within five days do not make out exceptional circumstances under section 8(1) of the Act.;