This petition is filed by the wife of the detenu seeking to set

aside the impugned order dated 27.10.2022 by which the District

Magistrate, Jabalpur in exercise of the powers conferred under

Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short “the

NSA”) has placed the detenu under preventive detention.

It is the case of the petitioner that based on the report of

respondent No.3, namely, the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, the

respondents conducted proceedings against the husband of the

petitioner under Section 3(2) of the NSA. It was, therefore,

recommended for his detention for a period of three months from the

date of the said order. Thereafter, the said period was extended by a

further period of three months. The same has been done without

granting any opportunity of hearing to him. That there are 16 cases

pending against the husband of the petitioner, out of which 13 cases

have been decided by the court in which the detenu was acquitted.

Only three cases are pending against him out of which two cases are

of the year 2022. He has apparently been detained for the offences

registered in Crime Nos. 253 of 2022 and 254 of 2022 at Police

Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur. Hence, the instant petition has been

filed seeking to set aside the impugned order of detention dated

27.10.2022.

3

During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents have

issued yet another order of detention dated 28.12.2022 extending the

period of detention by a further period of three months from

27.01.2023 till 27.04.2023. Hence, both the orders are under

challenge in the instant petition.

4.

Various grounds have been raised in the petition in order to

question the orders of detention. One of the main grounds being

urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that

there was an inordinate hurry in passing the orders of detention.

However, we do not find that such a pleading was specifically taken

by the writ petitioner. However, we have heard learned counsel on

the same.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground

urged by him at the time of hearing may kindly be considered. A

reply to the same has also been filed by the State. Therefore, the

contention raised by the petitioner to assail the orders of preventive

detention is firstly on the ground that there was an absolute urgency

by the authority, as a result of lack of application of mind, while

passing the orders of detention. He places reliance on the report of

the proceedings in the daily diary (Roznamcha Sanha) of the Station

House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Jabalpur which has been

produced by him vide Annexure P/6. The same can be found at page

93 to 95 of the writ petition. The learned counsel contends that the

said report would indicate that it was furnished to the Collector on

27.10.2022 at 17.57 hours. Thereafter, the same was forwarded to

the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and thereafter to the District

4

Magistrate who has passed the order on the very same day.

Therefore, when such a huge report has been submitted, the

concerned authorities should have adequate time to consider the

same. When the initial report itself has been issued at 17.57 hours,

the question of issuing the detention order on the very same day,

cannot be accepted. The only conclusion that can be drawn is to the

effect that there was non-application of mind and complete urgency

in issuing the order of detention dated 27.10.2022. That it was a pre-

meditated decision by the respondents to keep the detenu under

custody.

6.

The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is to the effect that subsequent to the order of detention

dated 27.10.2022 being passed, he submitted a representation on

03.11.2022 through his advocate Shri Manish Mishra. Thereafter, on

04.11.2022, the representation was forwarded for comments to the

Superintendent

of

Police,

Jabalpur.

On

22.11.2022,

the

Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur by his opinion addressed to the