Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 332 (RAJ)

Dilip v. State of Rajasthan

2000-03-10

G.L.GUPTA, J.C.VERMA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - This petition styled as Habeas Corpus Petition is filed on behalf of Dilip, arrested and put under detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 (for short the `Act'), vide order dated 20.5.1999, passed by District Magistrate, Jaipur. Various grounds to challenge the detention have been stated in the petition. It has been stated that the grounds on which the order has been passed are not such on the basis of which detention under the Act could be passed. It is also stated that the relevant documents and the papers were not supplied by the detaining authority, to the detenu and hence he was deprived of making effective representation. 2. In the reply filed by the respondents it has been stated that on the basic of the material, showing the criminal activities of the detenue, placed before the detaining authority by the S.P. Jaipur, the detention order has been passed, it has also been stated that the criminal activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the earned Govt. Advocate and have perused the record of the case. 4. The first contention canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the order Annexure 1 a period of detention of one year was fixed which makes the order illegal. He relies on the cases of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 1999(3) WLC (Raj.) 36 and Raju Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan and another, D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 2531/1999 decided on 7.1.2000 . The second contention of the learned counsel is that she grounds for passing the order were not recorded before the order Annexure 1 was passed and the grounds were recorded two days after the detention, which, according to him, makes the detention illegal. 5. The learned Government Advocate is fair enough to concede that the detaining authority has committed obovious error in fixing the detention Period as one year. He states that after seeing the impugned order, the instructions have been issued to all the District Magistrates not to fix the period under the detention orders as it vitiates the the detention order as held by this Court in the cases relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. He states that after seeing the impugned order, the instructions have been issued to all the District Magistrates not to fix the period under the detention orders as it vitiates the the detention order as held by this Court in the cases relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. He has Also not been able to satisfy us that the grounds of detention had been Recorded by the District Magistrate before signing the order Annexure 1. The acts which have been stated in the reply shows that the grounds for the detention order were supplied to the petitioner on 22.5.1999. It has no where been stated at para 6 of the reply that the grounds had been recorded prior the signing of the order Annexure 1, which indicates that the grounds had not been recorded before passing the order. 6. This Court in the aforesaid two cases has clearly held that if in the retention order a period is fixed for detention, it renders the detention order illegal and detention stands vitiated. In taking that view this Court lad relied on the cases of Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 27 and Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay, AIR 1952 SC 181 and other cases wherein it has been held that if period of detention is already fixed in the detention order by the District Magistrate, the detention is vitiated. 7. We see no reason to take a view different than the one taken by the two Division Benches of this Court on the point. Admittedly, in the detention order the District Magistrate had fixed the period of one year. The order is able to be quashed on this ground alone. 8. There are many other grounds taken in the petition. We do not think it necessary to consider those grounds as the writ petition deserves to be allowed on the first ground alone. 9. Consequently, this petition is accepted. The detention order is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.Writ Petition accepted. *******