Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahinder Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 8 November, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)MPHT298
ORDER
Bhawani Singh, C J.
1. Mahinder Singh son of Prem Singh Patwa has been detained by District Magistrate, East Nimar (Khandwa) by order dated March 23, 2001 under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short - the Act of 1980). He has challenged this order through this writ petition raising the grievance that the respondents have not passed the order in accordance with Jaw, matter has not been processed as required under the Act of 1980 and the grounds of detention are not germane for the passing of the order. These allegations have been seriously contested by Shri S.K. Seth, learned Additional Advocate General for State. Record of case has been produced in support of the submissions that detention is perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner was afforded due opportunity to make representation and grounds of detention justify taking of action, confirmation thereof by the competent authority.
2. Order of detention is dated March 23, 2001 (Annexure R/6-A). Grounds of detention are dated March 29, 2001 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner was detained on March 29, 2001. Grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on the same day (Annexure R/6-B). The State Government was informed about the detention order on March 23, 2001 (Annexure R-2). Thereafter, State Government accorded initial approval on April 3, 2001 (Annexure R-10), followed by information to Central Government on April 4, 2001 (Annexures R-11 and R-12). The case was referred to Advisory Board on April 10, 2001 (Annexure R-13) which approved the action by report dated May 15, 2001. The petitioner addressed representation to Secretary, Department of Home on April 16, 2001. It was forwarded to the Secretary of the Board on April 19, 2001 (Annexure R-14). Representation of Prem Singh Patwa, father of detenu, to District Magistrate is dated May 15, 2001 when the Advisory Board considered the matter. After receipt of the report from the Advisory Board, the State Government confirmed the detention order on May 23, 2001 (Annexure P-5). From narration of the relevant dates, it is clear that the matter has been processed within periods specified by Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 3, Sections 8, 10 and 11 of the Act of 1980.
3. Shri H.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order of detention is liable to be set aside since it can not survive for period exceeding three months at a time under Proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 1980. We are not impressed by this submission for the reason that this Proviso prescribes the period during which District Magistrate or Commissioner can exercise the power delegated to them by the State Government under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1980. In this case, order of delegation is dated December 29, 2000, published in Gazette on the same date, giving authority to District Magistrate to pass order from 1-1-2001 to 31-3-2001. The detention order in this case has been passed on March 23, 2001 by District Magistrate, East Nimar (Khandwa), therefore, the objection is unsustainable.
4. It was contended that grounds of detention are either vague or they deal with matters in which the detenu has been acquitted by the Court. That being so, authorities have not applied their mind before passing the order of detention and, therefore, order of detention is liable to be set aside. It is also pointed out that one case taken into consideration by the authority does not pertain to the petitioner, therefore, for this reason also, the order is liable to be quashed.
5. Under Section 5A of the Act of 1980, the detention order is deemed to be made separately on each of the grounds where number of grounds for detention are many and order of detention can not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or more of the grounds are vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such persons or invalid for any other reason whatsoever. It also provides that it can not be held that the Government or officers making such order would not have been satisfied in case such grounds were taken into consideration. It is also envisaged that the Government or its officer making order of detention shall be deemed to have made the order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as required under this section with respect to the remaining ground or grounds. A proper and careful reading of Section 5A of the Act of 1980 clearly demonstrates that the grounds raised by the petitioner against his detention in the context of grounds of detention are neither germane nor the detention can be assailed successfully on these grounds. It can therefore be said that the detention order could be passed on one or on more grounds incorporated in the detention order.
6. Last question pressed for consideration by the petitioner is non-consideration of the representation by the competent authority. Here it may be recorded that the representation of the petitioner is addressed to Advisory Board and the same was forwarded to Advisory Board for consideration on May 15, 2001. We have perused the report of the Advisory Board. It has been recorded by the Advisory Board that grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu and opportunity to make a representation against the detention order was afforded. The detenu appeared before the Advisory Board. He was heard and material on record was considered.
7. Father of petitioner also gave representation against order of detention of petitioner. The Act does not provide for giving of representation by person(s) other than the detenu. In the present case, detenu himself represented against his detention. The plea is therefore rejected.
8. After giving our careful consideration to the entire matter, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.
9. Writ Petition dismissed.