JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, mother of detenue-Hariom Ramawat, aggrieved of the order dated 25.07.2023 (Annex-1), whereby he has been ordered to be detained under the provisions of Rajasthan Preventive of Anti- Social Activities Act, 2006 (‘Act’) and the order dated 13.09.2023 (Annex-5), wherein based on the opinion of the Advisory Board, order under Section 13 (1) of the Act, has been passed placing the detenue under preventive detention for a period of one year i.e. till 25.07.2024.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the detenue was ordered to be released on bail on 21.07.2023, however, he was not freed and kept under detention. Whereafter, on 25.07.2023 the District Magistrate, Bikaner passed the order of detention based on a complaint dated 23.07.2023 made by the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, under provisions of the Act.

3. On 26.07.2023, the detention of the son of the petitioner was shown in records and the order dated 25.07.2023 was served on the detenue.

4. Qua the detention, the petitioner (mother of detenue) made a representation dated 02.08.2023 and on 03.08.2023 (Annex-3), an order under Section 3 (3) of the Act was passed approving the order of detention dated 25.07.2023. Whereafter, the petitioner was required to appear before the Advisory Board and on approval by the Advisory Board, order dated 13.09.2023 (Annex-5) was passed under Section 13 (1) of the Act ordering for preventive detention of the detenue till 25.07.2024.

5. Submissions have been made that the respondents have failed to provide adequate opportunity to make representation and failure to provide the opportunity, as envisaged under the Act, vitiates the order of preventive detention. It is submitted that the order of detention was served on the petitioner on 26.07.2023 and the covering letter (Annex.R/5) does not even indicate any period, within which the petitioner could make a representation. The order under Section 3 (3) of the Act came to be passed on 03.08.2023, whereas such approval could be granted within the period of 12 days and, as such, the detenue has been deprived of the opportunity to make a representation. Further submissions have been made that on account of passing of the order on 03.08.2023, the representation made by the petitioner-mother dated 02.08.2023 (Annex-2) also has not been taken into consideration and, therefore, the order of detention stands vitiated. Reliance have been placed on Mangi Kumari vs. State of Rajsathan and Others, DB Habeas Corpus Petition No. 3/2023 decided on 25.05.2023.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General made submissions that from the material available on record i.e. the grounds of detention as well as the order passed by the Advisory Board clearly reflects that detenue is a dangerous person, as defined under the provisions of the Act and that though he was provided opportunity to make a representation vide Annex.R/5, he failed to make any representation and as such, no plea based on the purported failure to provide opportunity can be countenanced. Submissions have been made that all the provisions, as contained in the Act, have been scrupulously followed by the respondents, which aspect has been noticed by the Advisory Board while approving order of detention and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

8. The covering letter sent to the detenue along with the order of detention and the grounds thereof, inter-alia, reads as under:

^^mi;qZDr fo"k;kUrxZr bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k Øekad lhch@U;k;@jktiklk@2023@6034&603 fnukad 25-07-2023 ds }kjk jktLFkku lekt&fojks/kh fØ;kdyki fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 2006 dh /kkjk 3 ds rgr fu:) fd;k tkdj dsUæh; dkjkx`g] chdkusj esa j[kk x;k gSA vkidks fu:) fd;s tkus ds vkns'k dh Áfr ,oa vk/kkj ,oa lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh QksVksÁfr bl i= ds lkFk Ásf"kr fd, tk jgsA vki vxj pkgs r