The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the Detaining Authority to be satisfied with specific criteria before passing a detention order under the National Security Act, 1980, and the requirement for sufficient material to support the grounds for detention.

Judgment:

B.D. Rathi, J.

1. By means of this petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is none else but the detenu, has impugned the order dated 20th September, 2013 marked as Annexure P-2, passed by the Under Secretary Govt. of M.P., Home Department, Bhopal under Section 12(1) of the National Security Act, 1980 by confirming the order dated 1st August, 2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Magistrate, Guna for keeping the petitioner in detention for a period of one year from the date the petitioner is taken into custody, i.e., till 1-8-14. The facts leading to the case may be summed up as under:--

On receiving the report from the Superintendent of Police, Guna vide Annexure P-3, dated 30-7-13 duly annexed with the list of criminal backgrounds and considering the same, the District Magistrate on 1st August, 2013 passed an order of detention in regard to the petitioner herein, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The grounds for detention were contained in the order dated 1st August, 2013, which stands affirmed under the order assailed before this Court, hence, this petition.

2. In this petition before us, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that while submitting report to the District Magistrate, no such material was placed to establish the grounds for passing a detention order against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the Counsel that only list of the crimes was attached with the report on the basis of which such an order was passed. It is pointed out by the Counsel that out of eleven cases registered against the petitioner in 6-7 matters he has been acquitted by the Court Competent and the remaining cases are not of such nature, which would involve the petitioner either directly or indirectly in any of the criminal activities against the Nation or Public at large. Apart that at the time of passing the order complete record was not made available. Therefore, it shows that the order of confirmation was passed by the authority without application of mind. Hence, on the aforesaid premised submissions, it is prayed that by accepting the petition an appropriate writ/order/directions be issued to quash both the orders assailed herein being passed against settled principles of law and the authorities concerned be directed to release the petitioner forthwith from the detention.

3. Opposing the submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, by filing the return it is submitted by the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that at the time of issuing the order of detention against the petitioner, detailed report was submitted by the concerned S.P. and the District Magistrate, after due consideration on the materials and after holding necessary inquiry and satisfying with the materials placed before him passed the detention order. It is also contended that a notice under Section 8 of the Act was issued to the detenu after informing the grounds of his detention alongwith the list of registered cases so as to enable him to make a representation before the Advisory Board. After serving upon him the notice, a detailed representation was submitted by the detenu through proper channel before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, after due consideration of the representation submitted by the detenu and the materials made available by the District Magistrate, forwarded its report to the State Govt. The State Govt., on consideration of the report submitted by the Advisory Board passed the confirmation order against the detenu by confirming his detention for a period of one year from the date of his taking into custody. It is, thus, prayed by the learned Deputy Advocate General that both orders under challenge are passed on valid grounds and facts. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, entire