- (1.) Taking into consideration the fact that this is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the preventive detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the National Security Act 1980 and the consequent urgency of the matter, as soon as the hearing of arguments in the case were completed, we announced the conclusion reached by us by passing the following order : "After hearing counsel, appearing on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the order of detention impugned in this writ petition does not call for any interference. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Detailed reasons will follow." We now proceed to state the reasons that weighed with us in reaching the aforesaid conclusion.
(2.) By an order dated November 6, 1982, passed by the District Magistrate, Moradabad, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3, sub-section (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter called the Act - the petitioner, Shri Raisuddin alias Babu Tamchi was ordered to be arrested by the Senior Superintendent of Police and to be detained in the District Jail, Moradabad, with a view to his being prevented from indulging in any activity which may affect the maintenance of public order. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was arrested on 8th November, 1982, and placed under detention. On the same day (8-11-1982), the petitioner was served with the order of detention and a memorandum setting out the grounds of his detention. On 12th November, 1982, the State Government approved the detention of the petitioner and an the 18th of November, the case was referred by the State Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act. Subsequently, on 24th November, 1982, the petitioner submitted his representation against the order of detention. The said representation was addressed by the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Moradabad, The District Magistrate forwarded the representation on the same day to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, for his comments on the submissions contained in the letter. On the 27th of November, 1982, the Senior Superintendent of Police submitted his comments to the District Magistrate. Thereafter, on 3rd December, 1982 the District Magistrate sent a report to the State Government enclosing the representation as well as the comments submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The aforesaid papers despatched from Moradabad were received by the State Government on the 6th December, 1982. On 9th December, 1982, the State Government considered the petitioner's representation and rejected the same. Simultaneously, on the same day, the State Government forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board. On 10-12-1982, the Advisory Board met to consider the case of the petitioner, gave a personal hearing to the petitioner and drew up its report holding that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The report of the Advisory Board was received by the State Government on 12th December, 1982, and on 21st December, 1982, the State Government confirmed the detention order under Section 12 of the Act. The petitioner was informed about the order of confirmation on 24-12-1982.
(3.) Though a faint attempt was made before us by the counsel for the petitioner to contend that the grounds of detention served on the petitioner did not disclose any material relevant under Section 3 of the Act, there is no scope at all for urging such a contention in the present case. The imputation against the petitioner is that he was inciting and fomenting communal hatred and violence and creating an atmosphere of fear and tension in the town of Moradabad as a result of which the schools, colleges and shops were remaining closed in the town and terror reigned in the whole town. Two criminal cases had been registered against him under Sections 147/353/153A, I. P. C/7, Criminal Law Amendment Act. As there was a possibility of his being released on bail and continuing to indulge in such activities which were greatly prejudicial to the maintenance, of public order, it was considered necessary by the detaining authority to place the petitioner under detention. Having regard to the situation then prevailing in the town of Moradabad which was unfortunately the scene of grave communal disturbances, it is impossible to countenance the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the grounds set out in support of the order of detention are irrelevant for sustaining an order of detention being made tinder Section 3 of the Act.;