ORDER :

1. The present writ petition, in the nature of habeas corpus, has been filed by the petitioner inter alia questioning the validity of order dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent No.1 and order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent No.2 whereby his brother Ummed Singh, has been ordered to be placed under preventive detention under the provisions of Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities, Act, 2006 (RAJPASA).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents though initiated the process by way of an order passed by the District Collector on 09.01.2023 for placing the petitioner under detention; ultimately the order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-2) was passed inter alia indicating that the petitioner being a dangerous person under the Provisions of RAJPASA be placed under preventive detention.

3. The order came to be approved by the State Government on 07.02.2023 under the provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Act. Whereafter, the case was referred to the Advisory Board which by its order dated 11.03.2023 approved the preventive detention. Ultimately the order dated 20.03.2023 (Annexure-19) came to be passed placing the petitioner under preventive detention till 29.01.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the action of the respondents is ex-facie contrary to the provisions of the Act, wherein the petitioner has been deprived of a proper opportunity of making representation against the order of detention inasmuch as the notice given to the petitioner dated 30.01.2023 is absolutely vague, which did not indicate the authority to which the representation was to be made and also did not fix the time frame within which the representation was to be made.

5. Further submissions have been made that the State Government, within seven days without waiting for the representation to be made by the petitioner, has passed the order dated 07.02.2023 approving the order passed by the District Collector, which is also contrary to the provisions of the Act, inasmuch as, the same has been passed in a mechanical manner without even making a reference regarding the requirement of filing the representation against the proposed preventive detention and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by the order in the case of Mangi Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.3/2023 decided on 25.05.2023, wherein in almost identical circumstances this Court inter alia came to the conclusion that for lack of proper opportunity to the detenue, the order of detentions were bad and, therefore, orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned AAG made submissions that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity of making the representation and as he has failed to make any representation, the respondents were justified in passing the order dated 07.02.2023 and no exception can be taken to the said aspect. The petitioner being a dangerous person as defined under provisions of the Act, is not entitled to any relief from this Court and the petition deserves dismissal.

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The notice issued to the petitioner reads as under :-