1. - In this Habeas Corpus petition the prayer of the petitioner is to declare his detention as illegal and to set him at liberty forthwith.

2. As per the facts stated in the writ petition the petitioner has been taking active interest in politics of State of Rajasthan and he has been prominent labour leader in District Sri Ganganagar. He has also actively associated with the problem of farmers of Sri Ganganagar in particular and whole of Rajasthan in general. He is one of the prominent members of Communist Party of India (Marxists) and has distinction to represent the Assembly seat of Sangaria. He has been in the forefront of numerous agitations launched by his party during the last four decades. It is further pleaded that in the recent past, petitioner took-up cudgels against the State Government in the matter of chaotic water supply to farmers, whose lands lie under Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna, Phase-I. Many representations were made to the Government to ease water supply situation. Since petitioner had been acting as the Spokesman of the farmers he became an eyesore for the Government of Rajasthan therefore with a calculated design to keep the petitioner away from the peaceful demonstrations made by the farmers, the Government machinery acting with blatant malice, got him arrested under the pretext of apprehending breach of peace. In this context a criminal complaint under section 107/116(3)/ 117 CrPC was stage managed. The same was submitted in the court of Additional District Magistrate Suratgarh (for short `ADM') on October 7, 2006. The learned Magistrate in disregard of mandatory provisions of the law on point issued directions to arrest the petitioner and to produce in court on October 8, 2006. The petitioner was produced on October 8, 2006 and after empty formality of reading over show cause notice was gone into the petitioner was directed to submit interim bonds to maintain peace till proposed enquiry under section 116 CrPC was completed. The petitioner thereafter was locked in jail. Formal orders extending judicial custody remand have been passed on different dates namely October 21, 2006, November 4, 2006, November 18, 2006, December 1, 2006, December 14, 2006, December 28, 2006, January 10, 2007 and January 24, 2007. Significantly on none of these date the petitioner was produced before the ADM. Mandatory requirement of presenting the petitioner in court before extending the remand have continuously flouted. Detention of petitioner is per se illegal and wholly without jurisdiction.

3. The respondents in their return prayed to dismiss the petition. It is pleaded that in the year 2005 also the petitioner was taken in custody because of disturbing the law and order situation. Then the petitioner filed Habeas Corpus Petition (5309/2005) at Principal Sea of this Court at Jodhpur which came to be dismissed on September 16, 2005 since he was no more in custody. The petitioner involved himself for last two years in the activities which were politically motivated and resulted in disturbance of law and order situation in the area. The petitioner had not only disturbed the law and order situation but had also caused heavy loss to public properties. Consequently a number of FIRs had to be lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Gharsana and Anoopgarh. The petitioner was also involved in FIR No.556/2004 for breaking barricades, throwing stones and causing damages to vehicles etc. Likewise the petitioner on many occasions caused disturbance to law and order situation by holding meetings in the name of Kisan Vyapari Mazdoor Sangharsh Samiti and also by making provocative and instigative speeches.

4. We have pondered over the submissions advanced before us and scanned the material on record as well as the case law placed for our perusal.

5. The right of personal liberty means in substance a person's right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of le