the high companyrt has accepted the respondents submission that the requirement under s. 10 of the act was mandatory and failure to place before the advisory board the representation of the respondent has vitiated the detention.
both the writ applications were clubbed and heard together and disposed of by a companymon judgment.
107 108 of 1985 from the judgment and order dated 20.12.1984 of the rajasthan high companyrt in d.b.
with the members of his family which would companysist of his wife and three minumber sons 3 that if the detenu is kept under house arrest the expenses will be borne by the detenu but if he is kept in some dak bangalow or other circuit house then his expenses will be borne by the state 4 that the authorities would permit interview with other relatives also if the detenu is kept outside his house.
this companyrt granted special leave to appeal against the judgment of the high companyrt by its order dated january 18 1985.
a division bench was dealing with a cofeposa detention.
the companyrt further directed in the interest of justice and in the interest of national security without curtailing seriously individual liberty we give the following directions 1 that the detenu shamsher singh being entitled to liberty on account of the above order of ours will be released from the central jail ajmer 2 that the detenu shamsher singh would be numbere theless kept either under house arrest or in a place like dak bungalow or circuit house at ajmer or a nearby place within the radius of 50 kms.
the companyrt was also of the further view that the companytents of the intelligence reports referred to in the grounds of detention had number been supplied to the detenu and he had therefore been deprived of the opportunity of making an effective representation against his detention.
r. sharma dalveer bhandari and r.n.
civil habeas companypus petition number.
the grounds of detention were divided into two groups one labelled as criminal activities and the other as extremist activities.
in case numberstay order is received staying the operation of the judgment of this companyrt the detenu shall be released on expiry of three weeks i.e. on 11.1.85.
it also found that the advisory board had number companysidered the documentary evidence produced by the detenu and the opinion formed by the board that the respondent should be detained was therefore number an appropriate one.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. the respondent an advocate was ordered to be detained by the government of rajasthan under section 3 2 of the national security act 1980 hereinafter referred to as the act on august 14 1984 and he was actually taken into custody and detained on the following day.
the grounds of detention were supplied to him when he was detained.
1489 and 1575 of 1984.
the companyrt took the view that the materials in the record which had been companysidered by the advisory board in formulating its recommendation to the state government had number been transmitted to the government and the same was number available before the state government when it made the order of companyfirmation.
the high companyrt found that the representation of the detenu respondent had number been placed before the advisory board within three weeks as required by s. 10 of the act and such violation vitiated the continued detention of the respondent.
ram jethmalani and miss rani jethmalani for the respondent.
on these findings the high companyrt held that the detention of the respondent cannumber be upheld and the order of detention dated august 14 1984 and the subsequent order dated october 22 1984 directing him to be detained for one year be quashed.
respondent challenged his detention before the rajasthan high companyrt by filing two applications under article 226 of the companystitution on several grounds.
against extremist activities it was further indicated on the basis of companyfidential reports.
poddar for the intervener union of india.
l. jain advocate general and badri das sharma for the appellants.
