Bhola Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

The order of detention challenged before us is dated

3.9.2012 (annexure-1) passed by District Magistrate, Munger under Section 12(2) of Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the order dated 12.9.2012 passed by under Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Police) as contained in Annexure-2 under Section 12 (3) of the Act approving the detention order dated 3.9.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Munger. Patna High Court CR. WJC No.607 of 2013 (7) dt.23-08-2013 The sole contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period of detention has not been mentioned in the impugned order dated 3.9.2012 and the petitioner cannot be detained for an indefinite period. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents showing therein that after passing of the order dated

3.9.2012, the same has been approved by the Government of Bihar, Department of Home (Police) vide order dated 12.9.2012 in view of the provisions contained under Section 12(3) of the Act. The representation of the petitioner has also been considered by the Government. The order of detention as also the grounds of detention dated 3.9.2012 were served on the detenue/petitioner on

3.9.2012. The State Government granted approval to the detention order vide order dated 12.9.2012. The matter has also been considered by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 18 of the Act and the petitioner has been heard by the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board has found sufficient ground for the detention of the petitioner. It has been submitted the Government has considered the period of detention as well as the cause for detention and has passed the order under Section 21(1) read with section 22 of the Act approving the detention order passed by the District Magistrate and has directed that the petitioner be kept in Patna High Court CR. WJC No.607 of 2013 (7) dt.23-08-2013 detention till 2.9.2013 vide Order No. 7/ CCA-10-67/2012 Home Police 7855 dated 3.10.2012 and this order has been served upon the petitioner through the Superintendent of Jail. The order dated

3.10.2012 detaining the petitioner till 2.9.2013 has not been challenged in this writ application. It has further been submitted on behalf of the State that the District Magistrate has been given power for issuance of detention order under Section 12(2) of the Act. Under Section 12(3) the District Magistrate is required to report the fact including the order of detention to the State Government forthwith together with the grounds on which the order of detention has been passed and any order passed by the District Magistrate shall remain in force for more than 12 days after making thereof, unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government, as such if the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate is not approved by the Government it will not be in force for more than 12 days. It has also been submitted that the matter has been reported to the Government by the District Magistrate and after considering the grounds and other materials the order passed by the District Magistrate has been approved by the Government vide order dated 12.9.2012 as contained in Annexure -2 of the writ application. It has further been submitted that after obtaining the advice of the Advisory Board the Government has considered the matter afresh and has Patna High Court CR. WJC No.607 of 2013 (7) dt.23-08-2013 passed the order dated 3.10.2012 (Annexure-D) to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 1 and 3 under the provisions of Section 21(1) read with Section 22 of the Act which has not been challenged by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and considering the material on record it appears that the detention order as contained in Annexure-1 has been approved by the State Government vide order dated 12.9.2012 which is within 12 days of passing of the detention order by the District Magistrate. The order dated 3.9.2012 has been further approved by the State Government as it has found sufficient reasons for detention of the petitioner till 2.9.2013. Considering the facts and circumstances, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. This writ application has got no merit and it is dismissed. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J:- I agree. N.A.F.R. Kanchan/- (Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)