Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Satyanarayan Luniya on 20 December, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Prakash Chandra Gupta
1
R.P. No. 583 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND
DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 20th OF DECEMBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 583 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
1. SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR INDORE (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE INDORE, DISTRICT INDORE (MADHYA
3.
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA , DY. ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR THE
PETITIONERS/STATE)
AND
SATYANARAYAN LUNIYA S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA LUNIYA, AGED
1. ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 705 BAJRANG NAGAR
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY
2. OF HOME AFFAIRS ROOM NO. 11 NSA SECTION, IIND FLOOR, MAJOR
DHYAN CHAND STADIUM, NEW DELHI (DELHI)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI PRASANNA R. BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 24.11.2023
Pronounced on : 20.12.2023
2
R.P. No. 583 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This review petition having been heard and reserved for orders
coming on for pronouncement this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice S.A.
DHARMADHIKARI pronounced the following
ORDER
The instant review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1
r/W Section 151 of CPC seeking review of the order dated 08.05.2023
passed in W.P. No. 5132/2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent no. 1 was allowed.
2. The respondent no.1 has filed a writ petition challenging the order
dated 22.09.2022 issued by the District Magistrate i.e. the petitioner no.1
herein under the provisions of National Security Act, 1989 by which the
respondent no. 1 was ordered to be detained. The aforesaid writ petition
came to be finally decided vide order dated 08.05.2023. The relevant
portion of the said order is reproduced below:
Admittedly, in the instant case, the order of
detention does not record any subjective
satisfaction or mention the period of detention,
therefore, the order of detention is vitiated in
view of the settled legal position. Moreover, the
reply filed by the State is not supported by the
affidavit of the District Magistrate, who had
passed the detention order which is mandatory
in view of the law laid down in the case of
Usman (supra).
19. In view of the above, impugned order dated
22.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the
respondent no.3 - District Magistrate and
Collector is hereby quashed. The respondent
authority is directed to release the petitioner
forthwith (if in custody), in case he is not required
to be detained in any other criminal case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein contended that the
findings of the Court that the order of detention does not record any
subjective satisfaction or no period of detention has been mentioned which
is contrary to the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of T.
Devaki Vs. Govt. of Tamilnadu reported in 1990 (2) SCC 456 wherein
it has been held that "since the legislation does not require the detaining
authority to specify the period for which the detenue is required to be
detained, the order of detention is not rendered invalid or illegal in the
absence of such specification."
4. He further submitted that the order under review was passed by this
Court relying upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
Commissioner of Police and Anr. Vs. Gurubux Anandram Bhiryani
reported in 1988(Supp) SCC 568 which was overruled by the judgment
passed in the case of T. Devaki(supra) which was further affirmed by the
Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Secretary to
Government of Tamilnadu Public (Law and Order) Revenue
Department & Anr. Vs. Kamala & Anr. in Cr.A. No. 507/2018 on
10.04.2018.
5. He further submitted that in view of the T. Devaki (supra), the other
two judgments relied by this Court passed by the M.P. High Court are per
incurium and, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 08.05.2023 passed in W.P. No.
5132/2023 deserves to be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for respondent has also not disputed the factual
position that the judgments relied upon while passing the order impugned
have already been overruled in the case of T. Devaki (supra). Under such
situation, appropriate orders may be passed.
7. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. On perusal of the judgment rendered in the case of T. Devaki(supra)
as well as Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu Public (Law and Order)
Revenue Department & Anr.(supra), findings recorded by this Court in the
writ petition cannot be countenanced. Apparent error has crept in while
passing the order dated 08.05.2023.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 08.05.2023 passed in W.P.
No. 5123/2023 is hereby set aside. The instant review petition is allowed.
10. The Registry is directed to list the W.P. No.5132/2023 before the
appropriate Bench for hearing on admission, in the month of January,
2024.
Let a copy of this order be kept in pending W.P. No.5132/2023.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh/-
