Rajkumar @ Babu Nati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2017 MP

                                  1
                                                     WP. No.3654/2021




HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
                AT JABALPUR

Case No.                             WP No.3654/2021
Parties Name                       Rajkumar @ Babu Nati
                                             Vs.
                                   State of M.P. and others
Date of Order                24/05/2021
Bench Constituted            Division Bench:
                             Justice Prakash Shrivastava
                             Justice Virender Singh
Judgment delivered by        Justice Prakash Shrivastava
Whether approved for         No
reporting
Name of counsels for         Shri Ahdullah Usmani, learned
parties                      counsel for the petitioner.

                             Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned
                             Deputy Advocate General for the
                             respondents.
Law laid down                               -
Significant paragraph                       -
numbers

                              ORDER

24.05.2021

Per: Prakash Shrivastava, J.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.01.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur forwarding the case of the petitioner for extending the detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'NSA') for a further period of three months with effect from 04.03.2021.

2. The brief facts are that the proceedings under the NSA were initiated against the petitinoer by submitting the report dated 12.11.2020 by the Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate disclosing the details of the cases registered against the petitioner and stating that on account of the activities of the petitioner, peace

WP. No.3654/2021

and tranquality in the locality was disturbed. The District Magistrate had passed the order dated 04.12.2020 under Section 3(2) of the NSA for detention of the petitioner and had served the order alongwith the grounds of detention to the petitioner. The order was forwarded to the State Government which had approved it on 08.12.2020. Thereafter, the Advisory Board had opined that there was sufficient ground for detention of the petitioner and the State Government by order dated 03.12.2020 had confirmed the detention order. The said detention order was subject matter of challenge by the petitioner in WP No.19444/2020 which was dismissed by order dated 28.01.2021. By the impugned order, the District Magistrate had sent the proposal to the State Government for extending the detention period for a further period of three months upto 04.06.2021.

3. The submission of learned cousnel for the petitioner is that when the earlier writ petition was heard at that time the challan in the criminal case was not filed and the petitioner was not in possession of complete set of papers, therefore, he could not point out that no seizure was made in the Crime No.738/2020 from the present petitioner. In support of his submission, he has also referred to the order dated 04.12.2020 by which the bail was granted to the petitioner. He had raised the submission that the impugned order has been mechanically passed.

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition against the original order of detention has already been dismissed and the order extending the detention period has not been challenged. He has pointed out the order dated 27.01.2021 filed alongwith the reply by which the detention period

WP. No.3654/2021

has been extended by the State Government from 04.03.2021 to 04.06.2021.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioenr's challenge to the original detention order dated 04.12.2020 has already been rejected by this Court while dismissing the WP No.19444/2020 by order dated 28.01.2021. The petitioner has not challenged the order of the State Government dated 27.01.2021 by which the detention period has been extended but has merely challenged the recommendation of the Collector dated 08.01.2021 by which he has sent the proposal for extending the detention for a further period of three month. The said communication contains due reasons for extending the detention, therefore, it cannot be held to be a cryptic order or an order suffering from non application of mind hence no infirmity in the order of the Collector dated 08.01.2021 is found.

6. So far as the petitioner's contention that at the stage of hearing of the WP No.19444/2020, he could not point out the correct factual position, we are of the opinion that the said submission cannot be appreciated in this writ petition. If the petitioner has any such grievance then the proper remedy available to him, is to file an appropriate application seeking review of the earlier order in accordance with law.

7. In the above circumstances, we find no merit in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

                                      (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)                            (VIRENDER SINGH)
                                            JUDGE                                           JUDGE

YS

Digitally signed by YOGESH KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA Date: 2021.05.25 12:50:00 +05'30'