- (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. I have heard Sri S. S. Bhatnagar, former Advocate General and learned counsel for Sri Atiq Ahmad, assisted by Sri D. S. Misra and Smt. Poonam Srivastava, as well as, Sri P. P. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and assisted by learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) MY learned Brother, Ganguly, J. has elaborately dealt with the facts of the case, in his judgment, which has been dictated just now. Therefore, without repeating the facts of the case, I proceed to add my views. I fully agree with the reasons and conclusions contained in the judg ment, having been delivered by learned Brother, Ganguly, J. that the writ petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing of an earlier writ petition before Hon'ble K. Narayan, J. on June 26, 1995, at his residence, inter alia, praying for similar relief, although not abso lutely identical in nature and obtained certain orders, but no effective interim order; restraining the respondents from detaining petitioner and taking him into custody in terms of similar alleged order of detention supposedly passed on 25-6-1995 in respect of other accused persons, namely, Arun Shankar Shukla alias Anna (who happens to be Member of Legislative Assembly) and Aziz Hassan Khan. Before parting with, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as I have already stated in the preceding paragraphs, I would like to add a few words of my own.
(3.) ALTHOUGH, on different times, Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down law relating to 'anticipatory writs', as reported in State of M. P. v. Bhai Lal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006; D. A. V. College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1971 SO 1731; and sitting as Single Bench at Calcutta High Court, I have had also occasion to confront with such type of cases, which are enumerated herein below; In Sri Sri Gopalji v. State of West Bengal, (1988) (1) CHN 420 and Satyo Broto Som v. West Bengal Industrial Corporation, (1988) (1) Cal LT 95, although I have followed the laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, relating to 'anticipatory writs', yet, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, this court is also not unmindful of the relevant fact that in the present writ petition the order of detention allegedly passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act, or, any other Preventive Detention Laws, has not been annexed, or, disclosed in the writ petition.;