H.V. Seth, J. - (1.) These two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by Subhash Singh (petitioner in Writ Petition No, 11798 of 1983) and Naresh Kumar (petitioner in (Writ petition No. 11799 of 1983) are respectively directed against orders dated 17th of August, 1983 and 25th of August, 1983 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, authorising their detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act. (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
(2.) The reasons communicated to the two petitioners ill writing indicate that the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to detain them with a view to prevent them from acting in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, was based on following facts: (1) That on 29th of April, 1983 at about II in the night when Vijaipal Singh and Chet Ram, after attending the function near Naw Bharat Paper Mills, arrived near the culvert close to double quarters in Modi Nagar, they found the two petitioners accompanied by four others standing there. The two petitioners and their companions started abusing Vijaipal Singh and Chet Ram and assaulted them with kattas (country made pistols), lathi and hockey sticks saying. Deal these sales first, the leaders shall be taken care of subsequently. On an alarm being raised by Vijaipal, number of persons reached the spot and on seeing them, the petitioners and their companions weilded their lathies and hockey sticks causing injuries to one Chet Ram as well. A written First Information Report regarding the said incident was made by Vijaipal at police station Mcdi Nagar whereupon Crime Case No. 220/80, under section 323/147/149 I.P.C. was registered and was pending investigation. Afore-mentioned activity of the two petitioners had created an atmosphere of terror in the area of Modi Nagar. (2) That on 18th of May, 1983 at about 9.45 P.M. when Man Singh and his brother Ram Sajiwan were, after performing their duties at the Cloth Mill, returning to their quarters, the two petitioners along with their companions armed with lathies, reached the Sokhar Road in Modi Nagar and saying that Ram Sajiwan claims to be the stooge (Chamcha) of Dhan Prakash, he should, therefore, be killedTT, started, with a view to kill him, assaulting him with lathies and hockey sticks. In the process, they caused grievous injuries to Ram Sajiwan. Accordingly Crime Case No. 222 of 1983, under section 147/307 LP.C. was registered against them at police station Modi Nagar on 18th of May, 1983. The said case was pending investigation. (3) On 9th of July, 1983 at about 10.15 A.M. the two petitioners along with their companions committed the murder of Phegu Ram, son of Dukh Bhajan, Secretary of Kapra Mill, Hind Mazdoor Sangh, near the gate of Modi Cloth Mills and Gaylord Hotel by assaulting him with lathies, knieves and hockey sticks. After so assaulting Phegu Ram, they ran away towards Satish Park. In that connection Crime Case No. 324 of i983, Tunder section 147/302 I.P.C. had been registered against them at police station Modi Nagar. On the same day and as a result of afore-mentioned activity of theirs, tension amongst the members of Hind Mazdoor Sangh and an atmosphere of lawlessness prevailed in the entire locality. Members of Hind Mazdoor Sangh thereafter announced that they would take revenge by taking blood for blood and adopted a violent attitude. Consequently they committed the murders of Ashok, Ram Kishan and Goroj, who were members of the petitioner Union C.I.T.U., and at another place committed the murders of Jagpal and Sahabuddin, two members of C.I.T.U. Thus the petitioners objectionable activities resulted in arson, looting and creating a feeling of terror and panic in the locality. Aforementioned cases were also pending investigation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners questioned the validity of their detention on the ground that out of the three grounds on which the orders for petitionersT detention were based, two of them, namely, the first two were such which merely had an impact on the question of law and order and had no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order. Relying upon a long string of decisions of the Supreme Court, he urged that inasmuch as the orders authorising petitioners detention were based amongst others on irrelevant grounds as well, those orders stood vitiated and the two petitioners are entitled to be released from custody forthwith. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners also emphasised that according to various decisions of the Supreme Court, the general rule is that in cases where the order of detention is based on a number of grounds, each such ground must be such which results into a prejudicial activity of the nature specified in section 3 of the Act and even if one- of such grounds is found to be Such which has no such effect, the entire order of detention would stand vitiated. According to him the exceptions to the aforementioned general rule, where t he grounds on which the order of detention is based can be read in conjunction with each other, are: (i) Where the particular ground is a general description of which the particulars are contained in other grounds. (ii) Where reading of the ground as a whole clarifies some vagueness and gives specific meaning to an ambiguous or vague allegation in any particular ground, (iii) Where the ground is so intimately connected to other ground as to warrant reading together to complete picture, (iv) Where the grounds which merely mention the antecedents of the detenu and which in fact are not grounds for detention, and (v) Where a particular ground is merely by way of introductory paragraph or preamble, and urged that the instant case does not fall in any of the exceptions pointed out above and as such care should be taken not to be swayed away by the cumulative effect of the three incidents mentioned in the grounds for detention communicated to petitioners. ;