JUDGMENT :

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness, legality and validity of order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the State after receipt of report of the Advisory Board dated 25.11.2021 in the matter of detention of the petitioner vide order dated 09.10.2021 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar.

2. On 09.10.2021, the District Magistrate, Sikar, upon receipt of communication dated 08.10.2021 of the Superintendent of Police, District Sikar and upon scrutiny of documents and evidence, formed an opinion that the petitioner, Om Prakash @ Oma @ Jeevan Ram is actively involved in various criminal activities, which involve allegations of murder, attempt to murder, loot, dacoity, illegal transportation of liquor, rape, illegal possession of arms and, therefore, is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2, sub-section (c) of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (for short ‘the PASA Act, 2006’). The District Magistrate, Sikar, on the basis of the material placed before it, formed an opinion that the petitioner is habitual in committing offences or attempts to commit or abet the commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On such satisfaction, with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it became necessary so to do and the District Magistrate, Sikar passed an order of detention. After drawing various proceedings and upon receipt of report of the Advisory Board constituted under the PASA Act, 2006, the petitioner was directed to be detained for a period of one year from 09.10.2021 in exercise of powers under Section 13(1) of the PASA Act, 2006 vide impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the State Government.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order and proceedings, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the entire proceedings, including detention order dated 09.10.2021, report of the Advisory Board dated 25.11.2021 and consequential order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the State Government suffer from serious violation of mandatory provisions contained in the PASA Act, 2006 and, therefore, violative of the provisions of the PASA Act, 2006, thus, unconstitutional being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to various grounds urged in the petition, argued that the order passed by the State Government on 07.12.2021 is non-speaking. It has been further argued that though the petitioner has been directed to be detained for a period of one year, upon receipt of report of the Advisory Board dated 25.11.2021, but copy of the said report has not been supplied to the petitioner. It is further argued that the Advisory Board has failed to properly scrutinise the material placed before it before submitting its report to the State Government. Further argument is that the order of detention is illegal as according to the mandatory provisions contained in Section 11 of the PASA Act, 2006, the matter was not placed before the Advisory Board within a period of three weeks and merely because it was forwarded to the Advisory Board within a period of three weeks, would not constitute compliance of Section 11 of the PASA Act, 2006, as the matter was placed for the first time before the Advisory Board on 25.11.2021, which is beyond the period of three weeks. It has also been argued that the petitioner-detenue was not communicated the approval of the State Government regarding his detention, which has seriously prejudiced the case of the petitioner. The date of detention being 09.10.2021, the Advisory Board was required to submit its report to the State Government within 50 days from the date of detention, which has also been violated. It has also been vehemently argued that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the P