Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore, in the light of the rational laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the various decisions, a pragmatic approach has to be taken at the time of examining the detention order specially in reference to the social evil of the drugs and an attempt to prevent its menace.

7. Now, we shall avert to the various arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

8. Learned Counsel has submitted that prior to this detention order dated 30-5-1989 the petitioner was also detained earlier by the order dated 7-1-1987 which has been placed on the record as Annex. 3 (G). But this order was quashed by this Court in Gaji Khan v. State (D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 909 of 1987 decided on 9-6-1987), while disposing of a batch of writ petitions. Learned Counsel has also placed on record the grounds on which the petitioner was earlier detained and they have been marked as Annex. Rule 3. Though initially this ground was not raised in the petition, but the petitioner by an affidavit has raised this ground and a copy thereon was given to the other side and time was also given to the other side to answer. The argument of the learned Counsel is that once the High Court has quashed the detention order, thereafter, on the same ground another detention order cannot be passed. This is an admitted fact that earlier a writ petition was filed by the petitioner along with various persons and this Court allowed those writ petitions by the order dated 9-6-1987 and quashed the detention order The leading judgment was in Talib Khan A 12 others v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. which was reported in 1987 (2) WLN 209. Learned Counsel submitted that once an order of detention is quashed then on the same grounds afresh order of detention cannot be made.

In that case the order of detention was quashed on merits and not on the technical ground as in the present case. It may be relevant to mention here that in the earlier judgment delivered by this Court in Talib Khan's case (supra) relating to the petitioner, it was held that the District Magistrate was not competent to pass such order and, therefore, the detention order was without jurisdiction. No opinion was expressed on the grounds on which the order was passed. A distinction has to be made between the quashing of the order on merit by the High Court and quashing of the order on technical grounds. If the order has been quashed by the High Court on merits after examining the grounds then in that case the Detaining Authority could not pass a fresh order on the same grounds as those grounds have already been agitated before the court and those grounds were found to be illegal. Therefore, a fresh order on the same grounds cannot be permitted. But a distinction has to be drawn between quashing of the detention order on merits and quashing of the detention order on technical grounds. So far as quashing of the detention order on technical grounds is concerned, there is no prohibition for issue of fresh order but the quashing of detention order on merit will prohibit the passing of fresh order of detention on identical grounds.

14. Similarly in Chhagan Bhagwan Kahar's case (supra) the detention order was quashed on merits and not on technical grounds. In that case, the, detention order was passed under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. In that case, the order was quashed on merits and one of the grounds which was canvassed before the Hon'ble Court was that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the High Court quashed the earlier order of detention and the second Order has been passed by giving reference to the earlier judgment of the High Court and again he was detained. It was submitted in the return filed by the detaining authority that the detaining authority took into consideration the previous grounds of detention also to establish that the petitioner was engaged in bootlegging activities since long. In that context their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed by referring to the decisions in Hadibhandu Das and Har Jas Dev Singh as under:

In that case, the detaining authority has referr to the earlier detention order quashed by the High Court. The order of detention also contained fresh facts in addition to earlier grounds. Therefore, the order was 'quashed. As such that case is distinguishable. But in the present case, the situation is entirely different. In the present case, it is true that number of grounds, which have been raised in Annex. 2 were also commodity with the grounds mentioned in the earlier detention order passed under the National Security Act. But the Court had no occasion, to examine those grounds on merits and the writ petition was allowed on account of the fact that the District Magistrate had no power to issue the, order of detention. As such merits of those grounds was not gone into by this. Court.