JUDGMENT :

Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of order dated 13.07.2022 (Annex.2), whereby the District Magistrate, Barmer, while exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 2006 ('the Act'), has ordered for preventive detention of detenue's brother Bhera Ram S/o Sona Ram subject to approval by the State Government & opinion of the Advisory Board and order dated 21.09.2022 (Annex.3) passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Home, whereby based on the opinion dated 25.08.2022 of the Advisory Board regarding availability of sufficient cause for the detention of the detenue, order has been passed confirming the detention order dated 13.07.2022 and has ordered that the detenue be kept in detention till 13.07.2023.

2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the Superintendent of Police, District Barmer filed a complaint on 13.07.2022 with reference to provisions of Section 2 (b)(c) and Section 3 of the Act against Bhera Ram, inter-alia, indicating that conduct of Bhera Ram falls within the definition of 'dangerous person' as defined in the Act and as he is involved in disturbing the public order, for the purpose of putting effective restriction on his criminal activities, order be passed for keeping him under preventive detention under the Act.

3. Based on the said complaint on 13.07.2022 itself, the District Magistrate, Barmer came to the conclusion that Bhera Ram was a dangerous person under the provisions of Section 2 (c) of the Act and there was sufficient reasons available for his preventive detention and consequently, exercising delegated powers under Section 3 (2) of the Act, ordered for his preventive detention.

4. It appears that in terms of provisions of Section 3 (3) of the Act, which requires approval of the State Government, in case, order of preventive detention is made by an officer authorized under Section 3 (2) of the Act, the State Government approved the preventive detention by its order dated 21.07.2022 (Annex.A/2). where after, the matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 11 of the Act and the Advisory Board by its opinion dated 25.08.2022 came to the conclusion that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the detenue Bhera Ram and that the proposed detention may be confirmed by the State Government as per law, which led to passing of the order dated 21.9.2022 (Annex.3) by the State Government, as noticed herein-before, confirming the preventive detention of the detenue till 13.07.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the detenue made vehement submissions that exercise of power by the respondents in placing the detenue under preventive detention is ex-facie contrary to the settled law dealing with the preventive detention, inasmuch as, the procedural requirements as detailed in the Act have not at all been followed and the foundational requirements of the Act regarding the detenue being a dangerous person itself is not satisfied.

6. It was submitted that the provisions of Section 9 (1) of the Act specifically provides affording of the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government, however, no such opportunity was afforded to the detenue.

7. It was submitted that the parameters for providing the opportunity have been laid down in Omprakash @ Omi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.217/2022, decided on 01.12.2022 (A