Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ramjani Sheikh vs State (Home Department)Ors on 17 July, 2012
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR DB HABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO. 74/2012. RAMNAJI SHEIKH PETITIONER VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS RESPONDENTS DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17th JULY, 2012. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI Mr. Sunil Tyagi, for the petitioner. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, AAG with Mr. Mohd.Rahil Kalam for the State-respondents. JUDGMENT BY THE COURT :(PER HON'BLE JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI)
1. The petitioner-detenu by way of present petition has challenged his detention made by the respondents under The Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act. 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 18.11.11, 25.11.11 and 16.1.12 and has also prayed to release him from the detention.
2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.3 pursuant to the powers conferred upon him under Section 3 of the said Act had passed the order of detention dated 18.11.11, on he having been satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person and was engaged in the activities which were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner was detained in the Central Jail, Jaipur and his father Shri Nazir Ahmed was informed with regard to the said detention vide the letter dated 18.11.11. The grounds of detention alongwith all the documents were also duly served upon the petitioner, for which the petitioner had given the receipt on 18.11.11. The State Government, also vide the order dated 25.11.11 had approved the said order of detention dated 18.11.11 passed by the respondent No.3. The father of the petitioner thereafter had submitted a representation dated 30.11.11 addressed to the Executive Magistrate and Police Commissioner, Jaipur and also to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan. The said representation made on behalf of the petitioner was considered by the State Government and was rejected vide the order dated 7.12.11. Thereafter the State Government had referred the matter to the Advisory Board as per Section 11 of the said Act and considering the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government had passed the order dated 16.1.12 confirming the detention order. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of filing the present petition. The petition has been resisted by the respondents by filing a detailed reply. The respondents have also produced on record all the relevant documents and orders alongwith the reply. During the course of the arguments, the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. N.A. Naqvi had also produced, for the perusal of the court, the report of the Advisory Board dated 8.12.11.
3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Sunil Tyagi for the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the cases shown pending against him, for the purpose of showing him as a dangerous person and that the order of detention passed by the respondent No.3 and confirmed by the respondent No.1 suffered from the total non-application of mind. According to Mr. Tyagi the order of detention was passed against the petitioner when he was already in jail and there was nothing to suggest that his activities were in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He also submitted that the petitioner was already acquitted in 14 cases which shows that the respondents were falsely implicating him in the cases without any basis. Pressing into service Article 166 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Tyagi submitted that the executive action of the State Government is required to be expressed in the name of the Governor and the detention order confirmed by the State Government was not in conformity with the said provision. According to him the representation of the petitioner was also rejected in cursory manner, which violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Addl. Advocate General Mr. Naqvi for the respondents placing reliance on the detailed reply and the annexures filed by the respondents, vehemently submitted that the respondents had complied with all the provisions under the Act before and after detaining the petitioner under the said Act. He also submitted that there were as many as 25 criminal cases registered against the petitioner which were of very serious nature. The petitioner having been declared as history-sheeter and the dangerous person, and the State Government having satisfied that his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was detained under the said Act. He further submitted that the representation of the petitioner was also duly considered by the competent authority, after calling for the comments from the Police Commissioner and that the opinion of the Advisory Board was also considered by the State while confirming the detention order. Mr. Naqvi also relied upon the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sadhu Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal (1975) 1 SCC 660 as regards the jurisdiction of preventive detention. Mr. Naqvi also relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in case of Suraj Pal Sahu Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 378 to submit that the detention order could be passed even if the detenu is in jail.
5. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it is required to be stated at the outset that the petitioner had not produced all the relevant material and documents alongwith his petition, inasmuch as the documents giving details of the cases pending against him, the copy of receipt given by him as a token of receipt for the grounds of detention etc. were not produced by the petitioner, and the same were produced on record by the respondents alongwith their reply. It is needless to say that the petitioner invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court was expected to come with clean hands and produce all the relevant material, the non-production of which otherwise would amount to suppression of material facts.
6. So far as the contentions raised by the learned counsel Mr. Tyagi as regards the non-application of mind on the part of the respondents is concerned, the court does not find any substance in the same. From the documents produced by the respondents alongwith their reply, it clearly transpires that the respondent No.3 on the basis of report made by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (North), Jaipur had passed the detention order, on having been satisfied that the petitioner was a dangerous person. The said order was also confirmed by the State Government within the prescribed time limit. The petitioner was not only informed about the grounds of his detention but was also informed about his constitutional right to submit the representation against the order of detention. The representation made by the father of the petitioner on his behalf, was also considered by the respondent No.1 after calling for the comments from the Police Commissioner. The State Government had also considered the opinion of the Advisory Board, which had also submitted the report confirming the order of detention. From the documents on record, it could not be said that the respondents had passed the order of detention without application of mind or in violation of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner.
7. Though there is nothing on record to suggest that the detention order was passed when the petitioner was already in jail, even if it is accepted that he was in jail, as rightly submitted by Mr. Naqvi, the order of detention could be passed against the person who is in jail, if the State Government was satisfied that he was a dangerous person and his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. There is also no substance in the submission of Mr. Tyagi with regard to non-compliance of Article 166 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the order dated 25.11.11 passed by the State Government confirming the order of detention dated 18.11.11, has been expressed in the name of the Governor only.
8. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)J. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I)J. Mrg.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
M.R. Gidwani PS-cum-JW