- (1.) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the validity of his detention order dated 1-1-1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (here in after referred to as the Act).
(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State. The impugned detention order (annexure 3 to the writ petition) contains as many as nine grounds on the basis of which the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is not disputed between the parties that grounds no 1 and 3 of the impugned detention order are the same which were mentioned in the earlier order of detention of the petitioner which was quashed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the said grounds have already been held to be stale, too remote and had no proximity with the order of detention and as such the said grounds cannot Justify the detention of the petitioner afresh The said contention has not been controverted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate and as such it is not necessary to dilate on these grounds afresh in the present case. So far as ground no. 2 is concerned the allegation is that at about 10 30 p. m. on February 18, 1984 the petitioner along with his brother Kamal and Chhotey fired at police party and the police personnel also returned fire' in self defence but, however, neither the petitioner nor the other co-accused were apprehended and a case under section 307 lPC. was registered against the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had no knowledge about the said case and he was neither arrested in that connection nor any proceedings under section 82/83 CrPC were ever initiated and he came to know for the first time about the alleged charge sheet referred to in ground no. 2 of the detention order. Moreover the petitioner's counsel submitted that the incident mentioned in this ground does not relate to public order but it related to law and order. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has not been able to substantiate before us that ground no 2 related to maintenance of public order and as such the detention of the petitioner on this ground is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that the other six grounds which were the basis for the satisfaction of the District Magistrate are stale, vague and in any case do not relate to the maintenance of public order but at the most only to the maintenance of law and order. Learned Deputy Government advocate has frankly and, in our opinion, rightly conceded that grounds nos.4, 5, 7 and 9 do not have any proximity to the order of detention inasmuch as they do not relate to the public order, it is, therefore, not necessary to go into the details of the incidents contained in the a oresaid four grounds.
(3.) THUS we are left now with grounds no. 6 and 8. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has vehemently argued that these two grounds have potentiality to disturb the peace and tranquility and are sufficient to uphold the detention order of the petitioner Ground no. 6 relates to an incident of November 5, 1984. It is alleged that on the aforesaid date at about 8.30 a. m. the petitioner provoked and incited the inhabitants of Sikandrabad to finish the people belonging to sikh community as Sardars bad killed Smt. Indira Gandhi about which a report was entered in the General Diary of the said date at police station Sikandrabad on the basis of information ghen by constable Bhai Chand. Learned counsel or the petitioner contended that this ground is vague, stale and has no proximity to the detention order nor it has potentiality to disturb the tempo of life on the ground that the incident is alleged to have taken place on November 5, 1984 whereas the petitioner was taken into custody on April 1, 1985, after about good four months. The detention order was passed on 1-1-1985 but was served on the petitioner on 1-4-1V85 because according to the respondents he was absonding and proceedings under section 7 of the Act were resorted to and on January 10 and 11, 1985 property of the detenu was attached under section 82/83 of the Criminal Procedure code as per order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burandshahr and on March 13, 1985 the Government was requested to issue a notification under section 7 of the Act for appearance of the petitioner. However, before such a notification could be published the petitioner was arrested an April 1, 1985 and the order of detention was served on him as contemplated under section 8 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid fact we are not inclined to accept the contention that this ground is a stale one. The allegation contained in this ground cannot also be branded as vague as relevant particulars and materials have been mentioned. The crucial question is whether the said incident relates to the maintenance of publice order and has any proximity with the detention order or not. It has to be tested in the context of post situations that prevailed in the country after the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi. As soon as the news of assassination of late Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was flashed particularly that she was assessinated by her own body guard who belonged to Sikh community an extra ordinary situation prevailed in the country. The whole atmosphere was surcharged and spontaneous feeling of hatred generated in the poeple belonging to other community against Sikhs which resulted in violence, loot and arson in a large scale in various parts of the country.Needless to say that even people belonging to upper and lower class of society other than Sikhs had started murmuring against Siku community and the petitioner in that extra-ordinary situation mignt have untered words contained in this ground, but the redeeming feature of the said utterance is that inspite of grave incitement and provocation nothing untowards happened in the vicinity and no damage was caused to any individual belonging to Sikh community. The petitioner did not cause any damage or harassed any individual belonging to Sikh community and there was no overt act on his part. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has drawn our attention to the case of state of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi, AlR 1984 SC 444 to support the contention that the speech made by the petitioner was an act relaung to the maintenance of public order. We have perused the aforesaid case and we are of the opinion that the controversy involved in the case of Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra) was entirely different and the Supreme Court held that non-mentioning of C1D report in the particulars of the ground of detention could not virtue the order of detention and as such it is of no help to the State. There is also one glaring feature that the petitioner though was at large between November 5, 1984 and April 1, 1985 yet there is nothing on record which may indicate that any act was committed by him against any individual belonging to Sikh community. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the incident mentioned in ground no. 6 does not relate to maintenance of public order. The other ground namely ground no. 8 mentions that the petitioner had created a terror in the industrial area of Sikandrabad. He used to terrorise the labourers by beating them so that they may not raise their heads against the factory owners. He was blackmailing the factory owners and was exploiting the labourers which fact was got enquirrd into by Sri Sanjai Krishna, Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, who in his report dated 14-11-1984 testified the correctness of the allegations contained in ground no 8. Learned counsel for toe petitioner has vehemently urged before us that this ground is wholly vague and does not contain any material particulars in absence of which the petitioner could not have made proper representation against his detention. On the contrary the learned Deputy Government Advocate has tried to use the report of Sri Sanjai Krishna, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, as sheet anchor of his argument in support of detention order. Sufficie it to say that Sri Sanjai Krishna did not act in any batter manner than a police officer. A copy of the said report has been filed along with the writ petition. We have carefully perused the said report and have minutely scrutinised the same. The criminal cases mentioned in the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate do not relate to the petitioner but to Kamal Singh, brother of the detenu. Most of the contents of the report are based on the information received from the police station, Sikandrabad. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate though in his report has mentioned that he met the relevant persons of the factories but no particulars have been mentioned as to who were those persons from whom he enquired or who were the persons to whom the petitioner had threatened. Only the name of Surendra Singh is mentioned in the report who is alleged to have told the Sub- Divisional Magistrate at Ansal Paper Mill, Sikandrabad, that in the night of August 24, 1984 the petitioner and his brother had beaten one Sheo Narain fitter but curiously enough a non-cognizable offence was registered at the police station in which even the name of the petitioner was not disclosed. Learned Deputy Government Advocate has asserted that since the petitioner was so hazardous and an out-law who had created terror, no body could dare in the industrial area to say anything against him. We are unable to accept the said contention inasmuch as the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate mentions that one Surendra Singh did complain against the petitioner. No material has been placed which prevented the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who is a first class Magistrate and an Executive Officer of the Sub-Division, from recording the statements of the factory owners or labourers of Sikandrabad industrial area and in fact he did not apply his independent mind and submitted the report on the information given by the police personnel of the concerned police station. In the circumstances it is clear that ground no. 8 is vague and has no proximity with the detention order. The detention of the petitioner cannot be sustained on this ground also.;