ORDER :

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus, assailing the order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar approved by the State Government and Advisory Board.

2. The District Magistrate, Sikar on the basis of the material and report submitted before it by the Superintendent of Police, Sikar, recorded satisfaction that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it has become necessary to direct detention of the petitioner. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2006”), the District Magistrate passed the order of preventive detention for a period of one year on 13.06.2022. Vide order dated 13.06.2022, the State Government granted approval to the order in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act of 2006. Vide memo dated 28.06.2022, the Government of Rajasthan forwarded the order of detention dated 13.06.2022 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar along with grounds of detention to the Chairperson of the Advisory Board, PASA at Jaipur. Thereafter, the detenue was produced before the Advisory Board on 27.07.2022 through video conferencing and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/detenue and perusal of record produced before it, the Advisory Board submitted its report in terms of provisions contained in Section 11 of the Act of 2006 recording its opinion that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner-detenue and thereby confirmed the detention. After receiving the opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government vide order dated 01.09.2022 directed detention of the petitioner for a period of one year w.e.f. 13.06.2022.

3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the order of detention, confirmation by the Advisory Board and approved by the State Government has filed this petition. Assailing legality and validity of the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends before us that the detention is illegal and unsustainable in law on account of violation of provisions contained in Sections 9 & 11 as also Section 14 of the Act of 2006.

4. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the mandate of Section 9 of the Act of 2006 was not followed inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order of detention by the Magistrate. He would next submit that he was not given opportunity to make representation as mandatorily required under Section 9 of the Act of 2006. Therefore, the order of detention is liable to be declared as illegal.

5. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the detention order was passed on 13.06.2022, it was placed before the Advisory Board for the first time on 27.07.2022 whereas mandatory requirement of provision contained in Section 11 of the Act of 2006 is that the State Government is obliged under the law to place before the Advisory Board, the grounds on which the order of detention has been made and the representation, if any, made by the detenue within three weeks from the date of detention. Therefore, it is contended, the detention order is not sustainable in law.

6. The third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no case is made out for invoking powers of preventive detention because such powers are to be exercised sparingly, after recording finding of satisfaction as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act of 2006. He would submit that there are few criminal cases which were earlier registered against the petitioner but later on, the frequency of registration of criminal cases considerably reduced. It is further submitted that in one case the petitioner has already been acquitted whereas in other three