.

1. The petitioner before this Court is aggrieved by order dated 19.11.2013 passed by District Magistrate, Bhind in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ( in short, The Act of 1980).

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Superintendent of Police submitted a report on 2.11.2013 for initiating action against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act of 1980 and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did submit reply and stated that he is a political worker and, therefore, proceedings have been initiated against him under the Act of 1980. The reply of the petitioner was considered and a final order has been passed on 19.11.2013. The order passed by District Magistrate reads as under :

ßU;k;ky; ftyk naMkf/kdkjh] ftyk fHkaM ¼e-iz-½

dzekad D;w@jhMj@Mh,e@70@2013@jklqdk@673 fHk.M] fnukad 19 uoEcj] 2013

izfr]

iqfyl v/kh{kd]

ftyk fHkaM

fo"k; % vukosnd iznhi iq= gfjeksgu flga dq'kokg] mez 30 lky fuoklh jksgkuh lhxa iqjk Fkkuk ygkj] ftyk fHk.M ds fo#) jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e] 1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds rgr dk;Zokgh fd, tkuss ckor~A fnukad 19-11-2013 dks esjs }kjk vukonsd iznhi iq= gfjeksgu flag dq'kokg] mez 30 lky] fuoklh jksgkuh lhaxiqjk Fkkuk ygkj] ftyk fHkaM dks jk"Vªh; lqj{kk vfèkfu;e 1980 dh /kkjk 3¼2½ ds varxZr fujks/k esa ysus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA i= ds layXu fganh o vaxzsth vkns'k dh izfr] fujks/k esa fy, tkus ds vk/kkj Hksts tk jgs gSaA d`i;k fujks/k esa fy, tkus okys O;fDr dks rkehy djkbZ tkdj ,oa ,d izfr dsanzh; tsy Xokfy;j esa nkf[ky djrs le; tsy v/kh{kd ds le{k rkehy djkdj nks Lora= lkf{k;ksa dh rLnhd ds lkFk rkehyh izfronsu bl dk;kZy; dks fHktokus dk d"V djsaA

2- vukosnd ds firk vFkok mlds ifjokjtu dks vukosnd ds fujks/k esa fy, tkus dh lpwuk nh tk, rFkk lwpuk dh fyf[kr vfHkLohd`fr bl dk;kZy; dks fHktokus dk d"V djsaA

3- vukosnd iznhi iq= gfjeksgu flag dq'kokg] mez 30 lky fuoklh jksgkuh lhaxiqjk Fkkuk ygkj] ftyk fHk.M dks fujks/k esa ysus dh lpwuk rRdky ok;jySl ls izeq[k lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu] x`g foHkkx ¼lh- vuqHkkx½ ea=ky;] cYyHk Hkou Hkksiky dks Hkstdj bl dk;kZy; dks Hkh lfwpr djus dk d"V djsaA

4- fujks/k ds vk/kkj rFkk vU; fooj.k bl i= ds lkFk layXu dj Hkstk tk jgk gSA ftUgsa fujks/kh dks fu"ikfnr djkdj ikorh 24 ?kaVs ds vanj bl dk;kZy; dks fHktokus dk d"V djsaA

layXu% mijksDrkuqlkjA

ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh

ftyk fHkaM

i`-Øa- D;w@jhMj@Mh,e@70@2013@jklqdk@674 fHkaM] fnukad 19 uoEcj] 2013

izfrfyfi %

1- v/kh{kd dsUnzh; tsy Xokfy;j dh vksj lpwukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrqA

lyaXu % fujks/k vkns'k fganh ,oa vaxzsth dh ,d izfr ,oa mijksDrkuqlkjA

2- Fkkuk izHkkjh ygkj ftyk fHkaM dh vksj lpwukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrqA

ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh

ftyk fHkaMA^^

3. The representation (Annexure P-2) was preferred before the State Government.

4. The learned Government Advocate fairly stated before this Court that he is not aware of order passed by the State Government.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued before this Court that the impugned order is bad in law, keeping in view section 3 sub-section (3) of the Act of 1980 as the period of detention has not been prescribed in the impugned order. He has vehemently argued before this Court that there cannot be a detention for an indefinite period under the Act of 1980. He has placed heavy reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhaiya @ Bhaiyalal @ Arvind v. State of M.P., reported in 2013(2) JLJ 300=2013(3) MPHT 495 (DB). Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :

9.” In addition to the aforesaid, It is seen that in the order of detention of the District Magistrate dated 28.7.2012, the period of detention has not been specified. In the order of approval by the State Government also the period of detention has also not been specified. The period of detention of one year at the first time mentioned in the order of confirmation passed on 21.9.2012 (Annexure P-7). In the sad context, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (5) of section 3, as well as s