ORDER :

1. This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner-mother of the detenue Vickey Fighter @ Ricky questioning the validity of orders of detention passed under the provisions of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 (‘the Act’) dated 30.11.2022 (Annex.2) and 08.12.2022 (Annex.3).

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West), Jodhpur sent a communication dated 18.10.2022 (Annex.1) to the District Magistrate, Jodhpur, inter-alia, requesting to order for preventive detention of petitioner’s son under Section 3(1) & (2) of the Act as he is a dangerous person as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.

3. Based on the said communication, the District Magistrate passed an order on 30.11.2022 (Annex.2) ordering for preventive detention of Vickey Fighter @ Ricky. The order dated 30.11.2022 (Annex.2) was approved by the State Government on 08.12.2022 (Annex.3) as required under Section 3(3) of the Act. Whereafter, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board in its meeting dated 11.01.2023 (Annex.R/12) came to the conclusion that detention was in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

4. Pursuant to the said opinion of the Advisory Board, the State Government passed order dated 01.02.2023 under Section 13(1) of the Act ordering for preventive detention of the detenue for a period of one year i.e. till 03.12.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, stated that though several grounds have been raised in memo of writ petition, based on the reply of the State, he is confining his submissions on the issue that the son of the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ‘dangerous person’ as indicated under Section 2(c) of the Act. It was submitted that the respondents have relied on registration of 23 cases against the detenue during the period 2006 to 2022, out of which, he has been acquitted in 07 cases, convicted in 03 cases and 13 matters are still pending before the competent criminal courts, wherein the detenue has been enlarged on bail and therefore, the allegations made in the communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner of Police alleging the detenue as a dangerous person and the consequential orders passed by the District Magistrate and the State Government, cannot be sustained.

6. Learned counsel emphasized that the nature of cases, which have been registered against the detenue, the same pertains to ‘law and order’ and has nothing to do with ‘public order’ which is sine qua non for the purpose of preventive detention as laid down in several pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set-aside.

7. Reliance has been placed on Mangi Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 3/2023, decided on 25.05.2023 and Chandrashekhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Others in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 50/2017, decided on 22.05.2017.

8. Learned AAG appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the conduct of the detenue over a period of time has been such that he has become a threat to the public order, which fact was emphasized by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) in his communication dated 18.05.2022 made to the District Magistrate enumerating in detail, the actions of the detenue in threatening the public order. The District Magistrate after due scrutiny, passed the order dated 30.11.2022, ordering for preventive detention of the detenue which order came to be approved by the State Government on 08.12.2022 and based on the opinion by the Advisory Board, the State Government passed order for preventive detention of the detenue for a period of one year w.e.f. 04.12.2022 till 03.12.2023.

9. Learned counsel emphasized that a comprehensive view has to be taken with regard to various cases registered/pending against the detenue and the overall conduct ha