Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 670 (MP)

Laxminarayan v. Home Department

2016-08-08

D.K.PALIWAL, P.K.JAISWAL

body2016
ORDER 1. Heard. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – detenu – Laxminarayan s/o Dhannalal Gupta, is challenging the order dated 12.1.2016 passed under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as 'NSA') as well as by the District Magistrate, Indore and order dated 11.4.2016 passed by the State Government whereby, the petitioner has been detained under the provision of NSA initially for a period of 3 months, which has been additionally extended for a period of 3 months. Both the orders of detention are challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the same has been passed without applying the mind and the authority has no jurisdiction to extend further period of 3 months. It has also been stated that within the period of 12 days approval has not been obtained by the respondent No.2 from the State Government. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2016 an order has been passed under section 144 of CrPC for restricting the sale of intoxicated medicines without medical prescription prescribed by the registered medical practitioner. 4. That on 6.1.2016, an application received to Sub-Inspector G.S. Ojha, P. S. Lasudiya, the petitioner is selling certain intoxicated medicines and the same persons who are residing in the slum area are taking medicines at the cost of ten times of usual rates of the medicines from the shop of the petitioner namely Mahajan Medical Store then, immediately a search was made at the shop of the petitioner and around more than 1780 tablets vikelum 0.5 (Alfa Molam) were found with the possession of the petitioner at Mahajan Medical Store. On 7.1.2016 an FIR under section 188, IPC was registered against him. On 11.1.2016, the Superintendent of Police submitted a report to the District Magistrate recommending for issuance of detention order against the petitioner. 5. On 12.1.2016 after complying the mandatory provision of NSA order dated 12.1.2016 under section 3(2) of NSA has been passed. As per provisions of section 3(4) the respondent No.2 has informed to the Home Secretary on 23.1.2016 granting approval within a period of 12 days. Thereafter, the intimation of approval was sent on 29.1.2016. 6. On 19.2.2016 under section 12(1), the Advisory Board has confirmed the order of detention upto 12.4.2016. As per provisions of section 3(4) the respondent No.2 has informed to the Home Secretary on 23.1.2016 granting approval within a period of 12 days. Thereafter, the intimation of approval was sent on 29.1.2016. 6. On 19.2.2016 under section 12(1), the Advisory Board has confirmed the order of detention upto 12.4.2016. On 4.3.2016, the respondent No.2 has made a request for extension of detention order looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 11.4.2016 a period of detention has been extended upto further 3 months, i.e., till 12.7.2016. 7. As per the proviso to section 3(3) of the NSA, the State Government is empowered to extend the period of detention not exceeding 3 months at one time. In the case in hand, initially the period of detention was three months, which has been extended by further 3 months. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the period of 6 months has been completed on 12.7.2016 and the petitioner – detenu has been released, but as his detention was illegal, his order of detention was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing, reasonable compensation be awarded to the petitioner. 9. In reply Shri Rohit Mangal, Government Advocate has submitted that in the writ petition, no relief of compensation has been prayed. Even otherwise, the order of detention has been passed after subjective satisfaction by the District Magistrate and after 12.7.2016, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition as rendered infructuous. 10. Now the detention period is over and, therefore, the present writ petition has rendered infructuous. Looking to the facts and circumstances and in absence of any plea, no case for grant of compensation as prayed is made out. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous. K. P. Gangore for petitioner; Rohit Mangal, Government Advocate for respondents/State.