Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kamal Kishore Tripathi vs State Of Raj And Ors on 7 March, 2017
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No. 252 / 2016
Kamal Kishore Tripathi son of Shri Ram Niwas, by caste Brahmin,
resident of near Government School, Pratap-pura, Police Station,
Bah, District Agra(U.P.) presently resident of A-178 Trupati Nagar,
P.S. Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (East), Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
(Presently confined in Central Jail, Jaipur)
Though his brother:- Krishan Murari Tripathi son of Shri
Ramniwas, aged about 31 years, by caste Brahmin, resident of A-
178 Trupati Nagar, P.S. Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (East), Jagatpura,
Jaipur(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of
Homes, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Joint Secretary (Homes), Natural Disaster Department,
State of Rajasthan (Homes) Group-9, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent, Central Jail, Ghatgate Jaipur (Rajasthan).
5. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Pratap Nagar,
Sanganer, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Non petitioners/respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta.
For Respondent(s) : B.N. Sandu, AAG with Mr. Pankaj Sisodiya,
Assistant G.A.
_____________________________________________________
REPORTABLE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI
Order
07/03/2017
(PER HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J.)
This habeas corpus petition has been filed by Kamal
Kishore Tripathi through his brother Krishan Murari Tripathi with
(2 of 18)
[HC-252/2016]
the prayer that order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the
respondents directing preventive detention of the petitioner for a
period of one year up to 31.07.2017, be quashed and set aside.
Further prayer has been made for quashment of the proceedings
against the petitioner under Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social
Activities Act, 2006(for short 'the Act of 2006').
Facts of the case are that the Executive Magistrate cum
Police Commissioner, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur served upon the
petitioner a notice dated 01.08.2016 under Section 3(2) of the Act
of 2006 along with the grounds of detention containing 347 pages
and informed that he could make representation thereagainst to
the appropriate Government/Advisory Board/Rajasthan High Court
or the Police Commissioner, Jaipur through Superintendent of
Central Jail, Jaipur. The State Government vide order dated
09.08.2016 approved the order dated 01.08.2016. It was
thereafter that the Joint Secretary to Government Home (DM)
Department forwarded the matter to the Chairman of the Advisory
Board vide its letter dated 10.08.2016. Private Secretary to the
Chairman of the Advisory Board vide letter dated 12.08.2016
communicated to the Joint Secretary to Government, Government
of Rajasthan, Home (Gr.IX) Deptt., Government Secretariat, Jaipur
that meeting of the Advisory Board has been scheduled to be held
at 4.30 P.M. on 22.08.2016 in the Common Room of the Rajasthan
High Court Bench, Jaipur. The Joint Secretary, accordingly,
informed the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Jaipur(East) and Superintendent, Central
Jail, Jaipur about the date and time of the proposed meeting of
(3 of 18)
[HC-252/2016]
the Advisory Board. It appears that subsequently a letter was
sent by Private Secretary of the Chairman of the Advisory Board
to Joint Secretary to the Government with reference to their letter
dated 17.08.2016, wherein request was made for deferring the
meeting of the Advisory Board scheduled on 22.08.2016 in view of
the elections of Students Union of University of Rajasthan and its
Affiliated Colleges, which were scheduled to take place on
24.08.2016. This letter informed that in view of that request,
meeting of the Advisory Board has been rescheduled to take place
at 4.30 P.M. on 29.08.2016. Joint Secretary to the Government
again sent a letter dated 19.08.2016 communicating all concerned
about changed schedule of the meeting. The petitioner submitted
a detailed representation dated 22.08.2016 against his detention
to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, District Magistrate cum Commissioner of
Police, Jaipur as well as Advisory Board, a copy whereof has been
placed on record as Annexure-2. The Government vide letter
dated 24.08.2016 addressed to Commissioner of Police,
Jaipur(East) called for his point-wise/para-wise comments on the
representation submitted by the petitioner on that day itself
because meeting of the Advisory Board was scheduled to take
place on 29.08.2016 and representation of the petitioner was to
be decided before that meeting. The Commissioner of Police cum
Executive Magistrate, Jaipur forwarded his comments to the
Government vide letter dated 25.08.2016. The Government vide
order dated 26.08.2016 rejected representation of the petitioner
and sent communication to that effect to the petitioner. It was
(4 of 18)
[HC-252/2016]
thereafter that the Government conveyed to the Chairman of the
Advisory Board vide letter dated 26.08.2016 that it has after due
deliberations decided to reject representation of the detenu. Copy
of the representation, comments received from the Commissioner
of Police and order of rejection were forwarded to the Advisory
Board, which were considered by the Advisory Board in its
meeting held on 29.08.2016, which recommended the
Government to confirm preventive detention of the petitioner for a
period of one year. Copy of the report of the Advisory Board was
forwarded to the Joint Secretary to Government, Government of
Rajasthan, Home (Gr.IX) Deptt. Government Secretariat, Jaipur
vide letter dated 03.09.2016. The Government thereafter vide
order dated 09.09.2016 passed the order of approval of
preventive detention of the petitioner for a period of one year
from 01.08.2016 to 31.07.2017.
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner
in assailing the order of preventive detention submitted that impugned order dated 09.09.2016 is wholly illegal and unconstitutional. The order is non-speaking because the authorities have failed to apply their mind to the material on record inasmuch as they failed to consider facts and law in their true perspective. Mere fact that the petitioner has got 19 criminal cases registered against him could not be a reason to presume that the petitioner has become menace to the society or that he is acting in a manner, which is prejudicial to maintenance of public order. Most of the alleged offences are of petty nature, being under Sections 323, 336, 341, 337, 279, 379, 427, 325, 327 IPC, (5 of 18) [HC-252/2016] except few cases, which are under Section 365, 392 and 307 IPC in one of which (Case No. 519/2015), he has been acquitted. Two cases have been registered against the petitioner under Sections 4/25 Arms Act. In fact, out of 19 cases, 8 cases pertain to bailable offences. Besides, the petitioner has been acquitted in 8 cases and he has been extended benefit of probation in one case, in which he has been convicted for offence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Remaining cases are pending trial. Learned counsel argued that proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C. initiated against the petitioner vide complaints dated 27.06.2013, 16.09.2014 and 30.03.2015 were dropped by the Executive Magistrate cum Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur for want of evidence. It was only in one complaint dated 15.12.2015 filed under Section 110 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was bound down to maintain peace for a period of one year. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that activities of the petitioner in totality could not be in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or said to be such where he could be described as a dangerous person. It is argued that he is a completely changed person after his marriage in 2013. After the last incidence of 25.04.2013 with regard to which FIR for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 392 IPC was registered against him, he did not indulge in any criminal case for as long as two years till a false criminal case was registered against him for offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 427 IPC on 04.06.2015 in which he was eventually acquitted vide judgment dated 21.12.2015. Conduct of the petitioner did not have any adverse impact on the (6 of 18) [HC-252/2016] tempo of the society so as to effect the public order. It is argued that Section 11 of the Act of 2006 mandates that in every case where a detention order has been made under the Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 10 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the "detenu" and where the order has been made by an authorised officer, also the report made by such officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3. The respondents failed to place the case of the detenu/petitioner before the Advisory Board as mandated by Section 11 of the Act of 2006 within a period of three weeks. Initially 22.08.2016 was fixed as the date for producing the detenu before the Advisory Board. However, the respondents themselves requested the Advisory Board for change of date, with the result that the 29.08.2016 was fixed as new date of meeting by the Advisory Board. Mandate of Section 11 of the Act of 2006 was, thus, violated and detention of the petitioner became illegal.
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel argued that Section 3(3) of the Act of 2006 provides that when any order is made under Section 3(2) by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report this fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. It is argued that the respondents failed to (7 of 18) [HC-252/2016] communicate to the petitioner approval of the initial detention order passed under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006 dated 01.08.2016. Section 11 of the Act mandates that if any representation is filed by the detenu the same should also be forwarded to the Advisory Board. Learned counsel argued that though the petitioner made representation on 22.08.2016 to the competent authority of the State Government and Advisory Board, but since the State Government had already forwarded the matter of the petitioner to the Advisory Board vide communication dated 10.08.2016, the State Government has committed serious illegality in not forwarding representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board and wrongly rejected the same on its own vide order dated 26.08.2016. Action of the respondents has caused prejudice to the case of the petitioner even before the Advisory Board, vitiating all subsequent proceedings which have rendered detention illegal and unauthorised.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy and Others Vs. Union of India(UOI) and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 271; State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mahant Singh, (1985) 4 SCC 264 and decision of this Court in Ajay Rinwa Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others(D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 143/2016 along with one another petition decided on 19.09.2016). It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.
(8 of 18) [HC-252/2016] Mr. B.N. Sandu, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that there are total 19 criminal cases registered against the petitioner, which brings him within the definition of "dangerous person" under Section 2(c) of the Act of 2006. Criminal cases lodged against the petitioner from the year 2012 to 2015 were made basis for detention of the petitioner. Although the petitioner was acquitted in six criminal cases, but the reason of acquittal was either due to fear of the petitioner or the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile or even compromised the matter. In one case, the petitioner was extended benefit of doubt. Proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 Cr.P.C. on three occasions failed because the witnesses due to fear of the petitioner, did not support case of the prosecution. Finally vide order dated 30.05.2016, the petitioner was bound down to maintain peace for a period of one year. It is denied that the petitioner was not served approval order of initial detention under Section 3(2) of the Act of 2006. At the time of initial detention, communication was sent to brother of the petitioner informing him about detention of the petitioner under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act of 2006. The petitioner was informed vide communication dated 17.08.2016 for appearing before Advisory Board on 22.08.2016. He gave his acceptance at the back of that letter, copy whereof has been placed on record. Learned Additional Advocate General referred to specific affidavit of Shri Ashok Chouhan, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sanganer, Jaipur, East wherein he has stated that Government of (9 of 18) [HC-252/2016] Rajasthan vide letter dated 10.08.2016 wrote a letter to the Advisory Board within three weeks of passing order of detention as per provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 2006. Said letter was was received in the office of Advisory Board on 10.08.2016 itself. The Advisory Board proposed to convene its meeting on 22.08.2016 vide letter dated 12.08.2016 sent to the respondents. Since there were elections to Students Union of University of Rajasthan and Other Affiliated Colleges and representation was submitted by brother of the petitioner, therefore, next date was fixed as 29.08.2016 and communication thereabout was sent by the Private Secretary to the Chairman of Advisory Board vide letter dated 17.08.2016. It was thereafter that the meeting was convened by the Advisory Board on 29.08.2016 and report of Advisory Board was received by the respondents on 06.09.2016 within 50 days as per the requirement of Section 12 of the Act of 2006. It is, therefore, prayed that habeas corpus petition be dismissed.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also original record produced by the respondents for consideration before the Court.
Though the order of detention of the petitioner has been assailed on many grounds, however, we propose to examine the validity of the same on the questions, (i) whether the respondents by not placing the grounds of detention before Advisory Board within three weeks of petitioner's detention have violated provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 2006; and (ii) (10 of 18) [HC-252/2016] whether consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Advisory Board was vitiated by reason of rejection of representation by the State Government rather than forwarding the same with its comments to the Advisory Board and (iii) whether such illegality has rendered the order of detention of the petitioner illegal.
Specific averments have been made by the petitioner in para 9 of the petition where reference has been made to mandatory provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 2006 which provides that in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 10, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the "detenu" and where the order has been made by an authorised officer, also the report made by such officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3. It has been specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner was produced before the Advisory Board much after expiry of three weeks on 29.08.2016 and further that the Government itself sought adjournment on earlier date, i.e. 22.08.2016, meeting fixed by the Advisory Board on the ground that there are elections of students union of University of Rajasthan and other affiliated colleges. These averments have remained unrebutted.
The Supreme Court in Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (1983) 4 SCC 537 held that Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980 casts a duty on the appropriate Government to forward to the Advisory Board (11 of 18) [HC-252/2016] within three weeks from the date of detention, the relevant papers pertaining to the detention. Therefore, the words 'place before' in that section does not mean anything more than 'forward to' or 'submit before' the Advisory Board the relevant papers relating to the detention of the detenu. The Advisory Board is a wholly independent body which can regulate its schedule of holding meetings and conducting its business in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 11 of the Act, which has specified a time limit of seven weeks from the date of detention for the submission of the Board's report to the appropriate Government. In view of aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi(supra), what is required of the State Government is to forward grounds of detention of the detenu to the Advisory Board within three weeks.
In the present case, order of detention of the petitioner was passed under Section 3(3) of the Act of 2006 on 01.08.2016 and the respondent-State forwarded grounds of detention of the petitioner along with relevant papers to the Advisory Board for consideration vide letter dated 10.08.2016, which was received by the Advisory Board on 10.08.2016 itself. Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Advisory Board vide letter dated 12.08.2016 conveyed that meeting of the Advisory Board shall be held on 22.08.2016 at 4.30 P.M. in the Common Room of the Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur. Even though, the meeting was adjourned on the request of the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur, yet, it cannot be said that the matter was not placed before the Advisory Board. It is, however, another matter that the Advisory (12 of 18) [HC-252/2016] Board instead of considering case of the petitioner on 22.08.2016, postponed consideration thereof till 29.08.2016 and finally vide communication dated 03.09.2016, the Advisory Board recommended for confirmation of the detention order. Requirement of Section 11 of the Act of 2006 in placing the matter before the Advisory Board thus stood complied with. In the present case, the petitioner was detained on 01.08.2016; meeting of the Advisory Board was convened on 29.08.2016 and the report of the Advisory Report dated 03.09.2016 was received by State Government on 06.09.2016. Further requirement of Section 12 of the Act of 2006 according to which the Advisory Board has to submit its report within 50 days from the date of detention of the detenu was also complied with. It is, thus clear that not only matter of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board within requisite period of three weeks, but report was also submitted by the Advisory Board to the State Government much before expiry of 50 days from the date of detention of the petitioner. Argument of learned counsel the petitioner in this behalf is rejected.
Coming to now second argument that consideration of the case of the petitioner by the Advisory Board was vitiated by reason of rejection of representation by the State Government, rather than forwarding the same with its comments to the Advisory Board resulting into violation of Article 22(4) and (5) of the Constitution of India and such action of the respondent- Government has rendered the order of detention of the petitioner illegal, it should be noted that Section 11 of the Act of 2006, in (13 of 18) [HC-252/2016] this connection, inter alia provides that in every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under Section 10 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the "detenu" and where the order has been made by an authorised officer, also the report made by such officer under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2006.
Section 3(3) of the Act of 2006 inter alia provides that when any order is made under this section by an authorised officer, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as, in his opinion, have a bearing on the matter, and no such order shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government. The order made by the authorised officer as referred to sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2006 refers to an order of initial detention made by the District Magistrate, but if after making of such order and placing the matter before the Advisory Board for its consideration, any representation is made by the detenu to the government authority/government and the matter is pending before the Advisory Board, the Government should necessarily forward such representation to the Advisory Board rather than rejecting it.
In Jayanarayan Sukul Vs. State of West Bengal, (1970) 1 SCC 219, the petitioner was arrested on 07.06.1969 (14 of 18) [HC-252/2016] under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and was served with the grounds of detention. On 14.06.1969, the Governor sent the report to the Central Government under Section 3(4) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 together with the grounds. On 23.06.1969, the petitioner made a representation to the State Government. On 13.08.1969, the Advisory Board gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention. On 19.08.1969, the State Government rejected petitioner's representation and on 26.08.1969, the Governor confirmed the order of detention of the petitioner therein. The Supreme Court, while dwelling on the principles bearing on the process of consideration of a representation of the detenu in preventive detention case, not only underlined that there ought not to be any undue delay in the matter, if assumed that though no hard and fast rules could be laid down to fix the duration therefor, the appropriate Government was to exercise its opinion and judgment thereon before sending the case of the detenu to the Advisory Board. It was observed that if the appropriate Government released the detenu, it would not be required for it to send the matter to the Advisory Board. However, if it was not so, the Government was to send the case along with the detenu's representation to the Advisory Board and, if thereafter, the Advisory Board expressed its opinion in favour of release of the detenu, the Government would release him/her. It was observed that if the Advisory Board would express any opinion against the release of the detneue, it would still be open for the Government to release the detenu. In that case, representation submitted by the detenu had remained pending (15 of 18) [HC-252/2016] with the Central Government even after the receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board. It was held by the Supreme Court that the same does not detract from the unequivocal and authoritative proposition laid down by the Court vis-a-vis the obligation of the Central Government to forward the pending representation to the Advisory Board for its consideration.
In SK Sekawat Vs. The State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC 249, the question which the Supreme Court considered was whether after referring the case regarding petitioner's detention to the Advisory Board, State Government was bound to forward detenu's representation to the Advisory Board even after thirty days from the date of detention. It was held that it is possible that sometimes the representation of the detenu may be received by the State Government after the case of the detenu has been referred to the Advisory Board. In such a case, so long as the representation is received within thirty days from the date of the detention, the State Government would be bound to forward it to the Advisory Board.
In Frances Coralie Mullin Vs. W.G. Khambra and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 275, the Supreme Court observed that the detaining authority must provide the detenu a very early opportunity to make a representation; must consider the representation as soon as possible, preferably before the representation is forwarded to the Advisory Board; must forward the representation to the Board before the Board makes its report and must consider the representation entirely independent of the hearing by the Board or its report, expedition being essential at (16 of 18) [HC-252/2016] every stage. However, the time-imperative can never be absolute or obsessive and there has to be lee-way, depending upon the necessities of the case. It was further observed that no allowance can be made for lethargic indifference or needless procrastination, though allowance must surely be made for necessary consultation where legal intricacies and factual ramifications are involved.
In K.M. Abdulla Kunhi and B.L. Abdul Khader Vs. Union of India & Others, (1991) 1 SCC 476, Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to make representation under Clause (5) of the Article 22 by necessary implication guarantees the constitutional right to a proper consideration of the representation. However, the obligation of the government to afford to the detenu an opportunity to make representation and to consider such representation is distinct from its obligation to refer the case of detenu along with the representation to the Advisory Board under Clause (4) of the Article 22 read with Section 8(c) of the COFEPOSA Act, to enable the Board to form its opinion and send a report to the government. The Supreme Court further held that it is implicit in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22 that the government while discharging its duty to consider the representation, cannot depend upon the views of the Board on such representation. It was held that consideration by the Board is an additional safeguard and not a substitute for consideration of the representation by the government. Affirming the ratio of two Judges Bench judgment in Frances Coralie Mullin(supra), the Constitution Bench held as under:
(17 of 18) [HC-252/2016] "16.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The representation may be received before the case is referred to the Advisory Board, but there may not be time to dispose of the representation before referring the case to the Advisory Board. In that situation the representation must also be forwarded to the Advisory Board along with the case of the detenu. The representation may be received after the case of the detenu is referred to the Board. Even in this situation the representation should be forwarded to the Advisory Board provided the Board has not concluded the proceedings. In both the situations there is no question of consideration of the representation before the receipt of report of the Advisory Board. Nor it could be said that the Government has delayed consideration of the representation, unnecessarily awaiting the report of the Board. It is proper for the Government in such situations to await the report of the Board. If the Board finds no material for detention on the merits and reports accordingly, the Government is bound to revoke the order of detention. Secondly, even if the Board expresses the view that there is sufficient cause for detention, the Government after considering the representation could revoke the detention. The Board has to submit its report within eleven weeks from the date of detention. The Advisory Board may hear the detenu at his request.
The Constitution of the Board shows that it consists of eminent persons who are Judges or person qualified to be Judges of The High Court. It is therefore, proper that the Government considers the representation in the aforesaid two situations only after the receipt of the report of the Board. If the representation is received by the government after the Advisory Board has made its report, there could then of course be no question of sending the representation to the Advisory Board. It will have to be dealt with and disposed of by the Government as early as possible."
The Supreme Court in Golam Biswas Vs. Union of India and Others, (2015) 16 SCC 177 had the occasion to consider similar argument that the representation of the detenu was not forwarded to the Advisory Board and rejected during pendency of proceedings before the Advisory Board and analysed (18 of 18) [HC-252/2016] effect thereof. It was noted that admittedly, representation of the detenu dated 08.07.2014 was pending consideration with Central Government and was not forwarded to Advisory Board. The Government rather rejected representation of the detenu during pendency of the proceedings before the Advisory Board. It was held that detention of the detenu is constitutionally invalid and rejection of the representation by Central Government on 21.07.2014 during pendency of proceedings before the Advisory Board was of no consequence to sustain the detention.
In the facts of the case, rejection of representation dated 22.08.2016 by the State Government vide order dated 26.08.2016 after it had forwarded the grounds of detention to the Advisory Board on 10.08.2016 and appraisal of the fact of rejection to the Advisory Board by the State Government must be held to have vitiated the proceedings of the Advisory Board as also subsequent confirmation of the detention by the State Government.
In view of above discussion, present habeas corpus petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. Order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to set the petitioner free from detention forthwith.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. Manoj