Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1877 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTPreventive detention of the petitioner - 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? - HELD THAT:- 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. 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? - HELD THAT:- 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 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. Present habeas corpus petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed.
|