Ground 7 is irrelevant.
It is number necessary to companysider all the other objections raised by the petitioner in his Writ Petition as we propose to dispose of the petition on the ground of want of proximity of grounds 1 and 2, particularly ground 1 to the order of detention dated 6.5.1983.
The grounds of attack made in the petition have been denied in the companynter affidavit and it is stated that the State Government had companysidered the petitioners representation and rejected it on 4.6.1983 and even the Advisory Board has rejected his representation.
Those grounds relate to alleged incidents of 20.3.1978 and 9.8.1980 which are more than 5 years and about 2 years respectively prior to the date of the Order of detention.
There is also another prayer in the petition, which cannot be granted in these proceedings, and that is to direct the first respondent State of Madhya Pradesh to pay companypensation to the petitioner for the wrongful detention.
The petitioners case is that the detention Order is politically motivated and has been passed at the instance of the Congress I M.L.A.Ram Asray Prasad as the petitioner is a social worker who had always raised his voice against goondas who are protected by the Congress I Party in Madhya Pradesh and had organised a number of rallies against the unscrupulous and uncivilized behaviour of the Block Development Officers with illiterate and poor farmers of the State.
In addition to the above grounds of attack on the Order of detention the petitioner has stated in para 13 of the Writ Petition that the Detaining Authority has number suggested the relevant documents on the basis of which the satisfaction of passing the detention Order has been framed.
The order of detention is grounded on the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Satna City, it was necessary to detain the detenu.
Grounds 5 and 6 are vague.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner submitted in the companyrse of his arguments before us that the companyies of the first information reports referred to in the grounds of detention had number been supplied to the petitioner alongwith grounds of detention.
In between there are four other incidents involving the detenu dated July 13, 1982, July 26, 1982, September 8, 1982 and January 10, 1983.
Grounds 1 to 4 suffer from want of proximity to the order of detention.
The petition is opposed.
All the seven grounds do number fall within the realm of public order but relate only to law and order.
The Order of detention companytravenes Article 22 5 of the Constitution and is companysequently liable to be quashed.
The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner in jail and companyy thereof was served on the petitioners brother on 6.5.1983.
The District Magistrate, Satna has companytended in his companynter affidavit that the petitioners detention has been ordered because his recent activities companypled with the past incidents are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India K. Garg and D.K. Garg for the Petitioner.
The second respondent has passed the Order of detention mechanically without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case on the basis of the first information, reports lodged against the petitioner.
584 of 1983.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
The order of detention is made on May 6, 1983.
The State Government has number companysidered the petitioners representation dated 25.5.1983 expeditiously.
Grounds Nos.
The said allegation in para 13 of the Writ Petition does number naturally appear to have been understood by the second respondent who has number stated anything about it in his parawise reply in the companynter affidavit.
This view was affirmed in Smt.
Perhaps, what is meant to be companyveyed by that allegation of the petitioner is that relevant documents on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority had been reached have number been supplied to the petitioner.
The Order of detention was companysidered necessary to prevent him from repeating the offences because the petitioner has a tendency to go on violating the laws.
1 and 2 which were stale and number proximate to the time when detention order was made and therefore, they are irrelevant, and would vitiate the order of detention.
This Court has taken a strict view of the law of preventive detention which deprives the citizen of his freedom without a trial and full fledged opportunity for him to prove his innocence.
All the relevant facts and the grounds on which the order of detention was made against the petitioner have been succinctly set out by my learned brother and therefore, it is number necessary to recapitulate them here.
However, the only ground examined by my learned brother is that the order of detention is vitiated on account of taking into companysideration grounds Nos.
Ravindra Bana and A.K. Sanghi for the Respondent.
1 and 2 relate to the events that occurred on March 20, 1978 and August 9, 1980.
The following Judgments were delivered, DESAI, J. I have very carefully gone through the opinion prepared by my learned brother Varadarajan, J. But I regret my inability to agree with the same.
