The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of relevant and true facts in reaching the subjective satisfaction for detention under the National Security Act, 1980.

1. :- Phalkoo alias Phalaksher r/o Suratgarh (presently lodged in Central Jail, Sriganganagar) through his brother Ali Sher, has preferred this petition seeking writ of habeas corpus against the orders (1) dated 24.5.2000 (Ann.4) of the State Government and (2) dated 21.4.2000 (Ann.1) of the District Magistrate Sriganganagar, whereby Phalkoo has been ordered to be detained under sub-sections (2) & (3) to Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity 'the Act') for a period of one year from 21.4.2000 to 20.4.2001.

2. It is the case of the detenu that on 21.4.2000 he was called by SHO P.S. Suratgarh and was then communicated that he has been ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate Sriganganagar under order dated 21.4.2000 (Ann.1) under Section 3(2) of the Act and accordingly he was furnished with memorandum of grounds (Ann.2) alongwith documents annexed thereto after having obtained his thumb impression by the authorities. It is also his case that the Deputy Secretary Home (Security) Government of Rajasthan (respondent No.2) communicated by order dated 29.4.2000 (Ann.4) as to approval of the State Government in respect of order of his detention passed by the District Magistrate on April 21, 2000.

3. The petitioner also submitted that he was brought to Jaipur and produced before the Advisory Board under the Act on 15.5.2000 and whereafter on or about 24.5.2000 the respondent No.2 communicated the impugned order (Ann.4) detaining him for one year, as indicated above. Hence this habeas corpus petition.

4. The respondents besides having filed parawise reply to the petition have also filed two affidavits of Mr. K.N. Gupta who had issued impugned order of detention, while functioning as District Magistrate, and another affidavit of Shri Anand Kumar during whose functioning as Deputy Secretary Home, the State Government approved detention of the petitioner. With aforesaid affidavits, notifications (Ann.AA.1 to AA.4) dated 6.12.99, 7.3.2000, 9.6.2000 & 7.9.2000 issued by the State Government directing the District Magistrates of all districts of Rajasthan State to exercise powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, have also been produced before this Court.

5. Shri Ravi Yadav learned counsel for the detenu contended that the incidents alleged in the grounds assigned for the detention under the impugned order have been formulated with oblique motive, because those incidents relate to the remote past and in most of which the detenu has been acquitted by the competent courts, inasmuch as those incidents are not of such nature so as to affect public order but they are of personal nature and that being so in no case can disturb public order, but all these aspects have been ignored by the respondents, rather public documents such as judgments referred to in the impugned grounds have not been procured, which shows hastiness on part of the respondents to issue detention order, hence the impugned order of detention of the petitioner suffers from non-application of mind. The learned counsel for the detenu has also drawn our attention to the facts stated in memo of writ petition by him in respect of his specific reply to the grounds of the impugned detention so as to show that particulars in the grounds have no bearing on the necessity for the impugned detention, and therefore, it has been contended that all the grounds of impugned detention suffer from lack of relevant material because the detenu had not been furnished with statements recorded under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code in criminal cases referred to in the detention order by the detaining authority, besides other particulars.

6. Shri Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions not only of the Apex Court but also of different High Courts including this Court viz. State of UP Vs. Kamal Kishore Saini (1988(1) SCC 287) , Mangu Singh v. Union of India (1998(1) RLR 239=1998(2) WLC (Rajasthan) 460) , Madan Gopal alias Madan Bhaiya v.