DINABANDHU CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and against his detention the petitioner has preferred this Habeas Corpus application. The order of detention is dated 16 -12 -81 and the detenu was arrested on the following day at about 3 a.m. On 21 -12 -81 the petitioner was served with the grounds of detention which reads as under:

(2.) ON 15 -11 -81 you attended a Steering Committee meeting of AAKP in the office of AAKP at Silpukhuri Gauhati which was attended by S/Shri Kamakhya Charan Choudhury, Tirtha Borkotoky, Haladhar Pathak and others. In this meeting a decision was taken to extend full support to the 36 hours 'Assam Bandh' for observance of which on 19th and 20th November, 1981 a call was given by AASU and AAGSP. Pursuant to this decision most of the employees of Government and Semi Government Offices remained absent from offices and duties which dislocated supplies and services essential to the community.

(3.) THE first question which has come up for our consideration is whether the grounds or any one of the grounds are vague or non -existent or misconceived and therefore the petitioner was deprived of his procedural safeguards under Articles 21 and 22 read with the procedure laid down under 'the Act.' It will be seen that three activities of the petitioner were considered as prejudicial activities. The third activity is also a specific instance or a ground of detention. It is alleged in Ground No. 3 that the detenu attended a meeting on 20 -11 -81 wherein decision was taken to extend support to the 'Road Block' programme. We have perused the dossier and we have no hesitation in observing that we are not at all satisfied with the manner, method and upkeep of the dossier. There is no signature or initial of any officer authenticating the correctness of the statements contained. This is the dossier which was produced before us as the original one. It gives a clear impression that it was typed in one sitting although it contains matters even prior to 13 -6 -81, the contents were recorded in a manner to create a clear impression that the incidents were recorded in one sitting and not recorded from time to time as the incidents happened. Further, the forwarding letter of the dossier shows that it is a fresh 'dossier'. However, leaving the matter at that let us proceed to consider about the third ground. In 'the dossier' we do not find any reference about the meeting held on 20 -11 -81 nor is there any statement about any meeting on that date wherein any decision had been taken. As such we are constrained to hold that the ground was non -existent and on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to be released.