Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 546 (ALL)

ANIRUDHA v. DIST. MAGISTRATE, ALLAHABAD

1987-05-06

R.K.SHUKLA, V.KUMAR

body1987
VIRENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Anirudha alias Baroo has filed this Habeas Corpus petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders of detention dt. 6-10-1986 and 12-11-1986. He has also prayed for his production before the Court. ( 2 ) THE order of detention dt. 6-10-1986 was passed against the petitioner under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as the petitioner was likely to be enlarged on bail in a pending case against him under Ss. 307/153-A, I. P. C. and in another case under Ss. 4/5 of the Explosives Act registered against him. ( 3 ) THE detention order was served on the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The petitioner asserts that he made representation against it but from the side of the respondents making of the representation is denied. In his petition the petitioner has taken up the ground of undue delay at different stages and levels before confirmation of the detention order. But this point was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments before the Court. No undue delay at any level or stage in dealing with the matter of detention of the petitioner has been made out. ( 4 ) FOR some technical defect the detention order dt. 6-10-1986 was set aside by the District Magistrate, Allahabad, on 11-11-1986. In its place another detention order dated 12-11-86 was passed against the petitioner on the same grounds. It was served on the petitioner on 13-11-1986. The petitioner made representation against the detention order dt. 12-11-1986. The matter of detention including detention order passed by the District Magistrate on 12-11-1986, was dealt with at different levels and stages. The matter was heard by Advisory Board (Detention ). After the receipt of its report the detention order dt. 12-11-1986 was confirmed by the State Government. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was informed of the orders. Along with the detention order dt. 12-11-1986 the petitioner was served with grounds of detention as well as the relevant material. The matter was heard by Advisory Board (Detention ). After the receipt of its report the detention order dt. 12-11-1986 was confirmed by the State Government. ( 5 ) THE petitioner was informed of the orders. Along with the detention order dt. 12-11-1986 the petitioner was served with grounds of detention as well as the relevant material. ( 6 ) IT seems from Annexure-3 filed by the petitioner along with the petition that on 27-12-86 the State Government has passed orders for confirmation of the detention order dt. 12-11-1986 against the petitioner and the detention of the petitioner was ordered for one year with effect from 12-11-1986. Subsequently under its order dt. 3-3-1987 (Annexure-1) filed with the counter-affidavit the said 12 months period of detention was ordered to commence from 7-10-1986 as the petitioner was detained from 7-10-1986 in pursuance of the earlier order dt. 6-10-1986. This amendment was made in accordance with the provisions of S. 14 (2) read with the proviso of the Act. ( 7 ) FOR the petitioner, it is contended, that the ground of detention does not make out that the case falls within the ambit of public order. According to him, the case against the petitioner will fall not beyond the scope of law and order. It is the nature of the act which determines whether the act committed by the detenu has impact over the society and can disturb even tempo of the community or its effect is confined to a few individuals so as to make it a problem of law and order only. In the instant case the ground of detention of the petitioner is that on 24-3-1986 in the afternoon the petitioner along with two or three other associates made provocative speeches to incite Hindus against Mohammadans. He exhorted the people to finish Mohammadans. He also threw a bomb which bursted. His activities on the main road before the public resulted in fear and terror for the members of the public. Shops were also closed down. It is thus obvious that the activities of the petitioner were likely to endanger public peace and public order and it was not a question of purely law and order. ( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioner that one single incident would not warrant the District Magistrate to pass detention order again carries no force and substance. It is thus obvious that the activities of the petitioner were likely to endanger public peace and public order and it was not a question of purely law and order. ( 8 ) THE contention of the petitioner that one single incident would not warrant the District Magistrate to pass detention order again carries no force and substance. This Court will not look into the question of sufficiency of grounds of detention. The act in question in which the petitioner indulged had the propensity of disturbing public order and the apprehension of the District Magistrate leading to the passing of the detention order under S. 3 (2) of the Act cannot be regarded unsustainable. ( 9 ) NEXT contention of the petitioner is that the second order of detention dt. 12-11-1986 was passed without application of mind. In this connection it is urged that there is no mention of the passing or revocation of earlier order of detention 6-10-1986. Nor it is indicated by the District Magistrate as to what was the technical defect due to which second order of detention was passed after revoking the first order of detention. It was not necessary for the District Magistrate to mention about the first order in the subsequent order. It was neither necessary nor required under law for the District Magistrate to mention specific grounds for revoking earlier order dt. 6-10-1986 when the subsequent order dt. 12-11-1986 was passed. Order dt. 6-10-1986 was revoked on 11-11-1986 and second order of detention was passed on 12-11-1986. The counter-affidavit of the District Magistrate also goes to indicate that the District Magistrate was not ignorant of the order dt. 6-10-1986 and its revocation on 11-11-1986 when the second order dt. 12-11-1986 was passed. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on revocation of order dt. 6-10-1986 fresh order on the same grounds of detention could not be legally passed though it has been done in the instant case. It is also contended that detention of petitioner w. e. f. 7-10-1986 under the subsequent detention as notified by Amending Order dt. 3-3-1987 was not permissible under law. Provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act rebut the contention of the petitioner. Section 14 reproduced as under :"14. It is also contended that detention of petitioner w. e. f. 7-10-1986 under the subsequent detention as notified by Amending Order dt. 3-3-1987 was not permissible under law. Provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act rebut the contention of the petitioner. Section 14 reproduced as under :"14. Revocation of detention orders :- (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of S. 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified : - (a) notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-s. (3) of S. 3, by the State Government to which that officer is subordinate or by the Central Government; (b) notwithstanding that the order has been made by a State Government, by the Central Government. (2) The expiry or revocation of a detention order (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the earlier detention order) shall not (whether such earlier detention order has been made before or after the commencement of the National Security (Second Amendment Ordinance, 1984) bar the making of another detention order (hereinafter in this sub-section referred to as the subsequent detention order) under S. 3 against the same person : provided that in a case where no fresh facts have arisen after the expiry or revocation of the earlier detention order made against such person, the maximum period for which such person may be detained in pursuance of the subsequent detention order shall in no case, extend beyond the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of detention under the earlier detention order. " ( 11 ) A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Parvesh Singh v. District Magistrate, Deoria, 1985 UP Cri R 35 has also held that after revoking the first order of detention, second order of detention can be passed on the same grounds. ( 12 ) SO we find that the contentions raised from the side of the petitioner have no force. ( 13 ) THE writ petition has no merits and is liable to fail. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .