G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THE matter arises out of A. P. Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986 ).

( 2 ) THE Division Bench, on a doubt expressed by the learned Advocate-General regarding the correctness of the principle laid down in M. Ashok Goud v. Collector, 2002 (5) ALT 72, referred the matter for full Bench. In fact, the issue involved is:"can the detaining authority refer past events of the detenu for the purpose of ascertaining the propensity of the detenu of his involvement while passing the detention order?"

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for detenu however submits that while passing the orders of detention, the detaining authority has to form subjective satisfaction on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the detention order and he is not expected to take into consideration stale and non- proximate grounds for reaching such satisfaction while issuing the orders of detention. While, it is the case of the learned Advocate-General that it is always open for the detaining authority to refer to the past events for assessing the propensity of the detenu, if the chain of continuity persists. Various decisions have been brought before this Court to sustain respective contentions, which will be referred to hereinafter.

( 4 ) THE Supreme Court in Smt Shalini soni v. Union of India and others, AIR 1981 SC 431, observed that: "grounds" in Article 22 (5) do not mean mere factual inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material which led to such factual inferences. The "grounds" must be self-sufficient and self-explanatory. Therefore copies of documents to which reference is made in the "grounds" must be supplied to the detenu as part of the "grounds". The failure to communicate the factual material as a part of the "grounds" would amount to non-communication of grounds on which the order of detention has been made and thus would infringe article 22 (5 ). The Supreme Court further held that: it is an unwritten rule of the law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote.

( 5 ) IN Jagan Nath Biswas v. The state of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1516, the Supreme Court observed that:"the Order of detention challenged before us is dated 27/02/1973. The subjective satisfaction of the District magistrate of Nadia, who directed the detention, is based upon three criminal adventures of the petitioner dated 8/11/1971, 9/12/1971 and 25/08/1972. The incidents themselves look rather serious but also stale, having regard to the long gap between the occurrences and the order of detention. One should have expected some proximity in time to provide a rational nexus between the incidents relied on and the satisfaction arrived at. This Court has repeatedly pointed out that unexplained and long delay will be fatal to the plea subjective satisfaction. In the present case, Counsel for the State Shri G. S. Chatterjee, took time to furnish an explanation as to why there was such a long delay for the District Magistrate to pass the order of detention. Unfortunately, we are no wiser today than at the previous hearing. In short, we are not taken into confidence by the District Magistrate as to why there should have been such an inordinate delay. We, in turn, therefore, are not satisfied about the bona fides of the subjective satisfaction of the District magistrate. In the result, the order of detention must fail as illegal. The petition is allowed, the rule nisi is made absolute and the petitioner directed to be released forthwith. "the Supreme Court in the said case holding that there was a long gap between the occurrences set aside the order of detention. It was categorically observed by the supreme Court that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document