Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 70 (JHR)

Vikash Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-12

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
ORDER By the Court.- Heard the parties at length. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the detention order bearing Memo No. XV-I/II-899/Law dated 21.09.2011 issued by the District Magistrate. Ramgarh (respondent No.4), under Section 12(2) of the Jharkhand Control of Crimes Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also .the subsequent orders of approval dated 01.10 .2011 and the order of confirmation dated 03.11.2011. 3. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 2504 , State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Shankar Acharya, submitted that this case is fully covered by that judgment in as much as the detaining authority did not commuhicate the petitioner about his right of representation. He further submitted that if the detention order passed under Section 12(2) of the Act is invalid for this reason, the subsequent approval and confirmation will be of no effect. 4. Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned orders and submitted that the petitioner had opportunity to make representation before the detaining authority and the approving authorities as such right is provided under the law and therefore it was not required to be communicated in the orders. He further submitted that the detaining authorities have got no enmity with the petitioner and they have passed the detaining order bona fide and as per the procedures laid down and that their apprehension and satisfaction is subjective in nature. 5. On this Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel, on instructions submitted that to overcome such apprehension the petitioner is ready to report to the local police station every month after his release from jail. He further submitted that the petitioner will be facing the trials regularly. 6. It appears that in the order of detention dated 21.09.2011 issued by District Magistrate. Ramgarh (Annexure-1) petitioner was not made aware of his right of making representation within a. given time by the detaining authority. We had called for the records but from that also it does not appear that the petitioner was informed about his right of representation against the order of detention. In our opinion the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner is fully supported and covered by the judgment of Santosh Shankar Acharya (supra). 7. We had called for the records but from that also it does not appear that the petitioner was informed about his right of representation against the order of detention. In our opinion the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner is fully supported and covered by the judgment of Santosh Shankar Acharya (supra). 7. In view of the judgment of Santosh Shankar Acharya (supra), the impugned orders are set aside. Petitioner is directed to be set at liberty, if not wanted In any other case. However the petitioner will report to the local police station namely, Patratu, once in every month for a period of one year from the date of his release. 8. As prayed let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Gautam appearing for the State for communicating it to the Home Secretary. Government of Jharkhand and the District Magistrates. The order may be communicated through FAX to respondent No.3 and 4 at the cost of petitioner. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.