Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 422 (ALL)

RAJENDRA v. STATE OF U P

1988-04-19

G.K.MATHUR, R.K.SHUKLA

body1988
G. K. MATHUR, J. Rajendra and Ram Vilas have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against their detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 passed by Sri K. K. Sinha, District Magistrate, Farrukhabad, under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, praying to set them at liberty. 2. The aforesaid detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 were served on the petitioners in jail on the same day along with the grounds of detention. The orders of detention were approved by the State Government on 9th January, 1988 which was communicated to the petitioners on 11th January, 1988. The representations made by the petitioners against their detention were forwarded to the State Government by the District Magistrate. The Advisory Board heard the petitioners on 28th January, 1988 and gave its report to the State Government and the State Government once again examined the entire matter of the petitioners and confirmed the detention of the petitioners for a period of tewlve months from the date of their previous detention orders, dated 20th December, 1987 as mentioned in the counter affidavit of Sri Chandra Pal Singh, Upper Division Assistant in confidential Section 6, U. P. Secre tariat, Lucknow. 3. With the petition, copy of the grounds of detention of 23-12-1987 of co-accused Deshraj has been annexed as Annexure 9 saying that the grounds of detention of the impunged detention order dated 31- 12-87 in the case of each petitioner are similar to it with necessary modifications. The grounds of detention contained in Annexure 9 are reproduced below to have an idea of the grounds on which the petitioners have been detained by the impugned order under National Security Act. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that on 20th December, 1987 the District Magistrate had passed the detention orders which he revoked on 3 1st December, 1987 but on the same day and on similar grounds again passed the impugned detention orders hence they are illegal, malicious and pointer to the non-application of mind. He argued that the matter set up against the petitioners in the grounds does not involve public order as it only makes out an offence of theft which is an issue of law and orders. 5. He argued that the matter set up against the petitioners in the grounds does not involve public order as it only makes out an offence of theft which is an issue of law and orders. 5. The learned Deputy Government Advocate made a statement before us that the earlier detention orders dated 20th December, 1987 were passed on the grounds of the disturbance of public Order which have been revoked by the District Magistrate on 31st December, 1987 exercising powers vested in him under Section 14 of the National Security Act, and on the same day impugned orders were passed against the petitioners on the ground of disturbance of maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community. 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act reads as under : "3 (2 ). The Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting any manner prejudicial co the maintenance of public order or from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. " 7. The District Magistrate has filed the copies of the detention orders dated 31st December, 1987 along with his counter affidavit which are separately reproduced below relating to each petitioner because copies thereof have not been annexed with the petition by the petitioners : 8. It is thus not correct to say that the detention orders dated 31-12-87 were similar to the detention order dated 20-12-1987 which have been revoked by the District Magistrate on 31st December, 1987. 9. The question whether the grounds of detention involved disturbance of "public order" or of "law and order" is no more relevant as the detention orders have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter set up in the grounds of detention order did not make out a case of disturbance of public order is against the fact and is wholly irrelevant. In this view of the matter, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the matter set up in the grounds of detention order did not make out a case of disturbance of public order is against the fact and is wholly irrelevant. The impugned detention orders under the provisions of Section 3 (2) of National Security Act could be passed indepen dent of the involvement of the disturbance of the public order. The impugn ed detention orders are, therefore. , not illegal. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also developed the argu ment that there was non- application of mind by the detaining authority because the grounds of detention are identical to that of the detention order dated 20-12-1987. 11. The petitioners as said above have not annexed with the petition the copy of impugned detention order dated 31-12-87 and the grounds thereof. It appears that the grounds of the detention orders dated 20th December, 1987 and that of the impugned detention orders dated 31-12-8"7 are similar. The subject matter of the grounds of detention, however, gathered from annexure 9 of the petition quoted above is the offence relating to the damage caused to transformers theft of copper wire and dislocation of the supply of electricity essential to the farmers for irrigation and for running other machines. It has further been mentioned in the grounds that this activity caused terror and panic in the public. The grounds were quite comprehensive in terms and are mainly directed towards the activity of the petitioners prejudicial to the maintenance of the supply of service of electricity essential to the community and detention can be made on this ground alone under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act. There is nothing to show that the petitioners were prejudiced in any manner in making their represen tation. The representation was forwarded to the State Government in time and was rejected by the Chief Minister on 9th February, 1988 and it was communicated to the petitioners through the District Authority on 15th February, 1988. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has deposed that the only consideration which weighed in his mind at the time of passing the impugned order was prejudicial activities which had disrupted the supply of electricity which are services essential to the community. 12. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit has deposed that the only consideration which weighed in his mind at the time of passing the impugned order was prejudicial activities which had disrupted the supply of electricity which are services essential to the community. 12. The fact that the District Magistrate passed the detention orders in question dated 31st December, 1987 after revoking the detention orders dated 20th December, 1987 on 31st December, 1887 itself tends to show that he had fully applied his mind and considered the existing grounds comprehensive enough and, therefore, made no change in them. We, therefore, find no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was non-application of mind by the detaining authority in passing both the impugned detention orders against the petitioners under National Security Act. 13. In view of the discussion made above the petition has no force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .