S. C. Matbur, J. - (1.) SURESH Jaiswal son of Kamta Prasad has directed this petition against his preventive detention under the provisions of the National Security Act. 1980. The order of detention was passed on 6-9-85, a copy of which is Annexure no. 1. Grounds of detention served upon the petitioner are contained in Annexure no. 2.
(2.) THE order of detention is baaed on two occurrences in which the petitioner was allegedly involved. THEse first occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 13-11-84 at 2.45 p.m. Report of this occurrence was lodged the same day at 16.05 hours by the victim of the occurrence Shiva Kumar son of Sukh Ram. In the report the informant has stated that he was standing near the office of Nagar Mahapalika Lucknow, at about 2.45 p.m., along with Radhey Raman Singh and Uma Shanker. At this time the petitioner, Shanker Dey, Sharik, Bablu and two others came there on jeep No. USS 4180 and started firing from the revolvers which they were carrying. A pellet struck the back side of Radhey Raman Singh's head. THE occurrence was alleged to have taken place on account of the enmity which the main assailants bore with the informant. It is stated that as a remit of the firing people ran helter skelter. THE assailants were alleged to belong to the group of Subhash Bhandari and Ram Gopa). The second occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the night intervening 29th and 30th July, 1985. Report of this occurrence was lodged at police station Nakahindola, Lucknow at 3.45 a.m., on 30-7-85. It is alleged that the police party comprising of S.O. Incharge O. P.Sharma, S. I. Nasiruddin, S. I. Gaya Dip, H. C. Dashrath Singh, Constables Ram Gopal, Rajveer Singh, H. C. Ramesh Kumar Singh, constables Durgezsh Giri, Ran Bahadur Singh, Ram Krishna Misra, H. C. Rakshpal Singh, constables Munni Lal, Indra Bahadur Singh and driver Shri Krishna were on patrol duty when at 12 in the night they were informed that at about 1 in the night certain miscreants will collect at the field of DAV College with a view to commit dacoity in the house of the propritor of Bharat Icecream. On receipt of this information the police patty went to the DAV College and waited for the arrival of the miscreants. The miscreants, it is alleged, came there at about 1 in the night and held some discussion amongst them. The police party challenged them to stop On this one of the miscreants fired two shots towards the police party. From the police side Ram Gopal and Ramveer Singh also fired one shot each. The police party rushed towards the miscreants and succeeded in apprehending the petitioner Suresh, Ram Sabad, Ashok, Kaviraj, Ramesh Kumar Rana and lshrat Ali. On search of the persons so apprehended cartridges and fire-arms were recovered. In the grounds of detention it is mentioned that after investigation charge-sheet had been filed in court where the case was pending. The petitioner's detention has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on two grounds viz, (1) The incidents relied upon for the detention are not related to public order but only to law and order ; and (2) there has been inordinate delay in deciding the petitioner's representation. We shall deal with these two grounds in the order in which they have been stated.
(3.) IN the second ground of detention the main allegation is that the petitioner fired upon the police personnel who had gone to the place of occurrence in the discharge of their official duty. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that attack on police personnel is a matter related not to only law and order but to public order. IN support of his submission he has placed reliance on 1985 AL3 132, Shiva Shanker v. INcharge Police Station Hasanganj, Lucknow and 1985 ALJ 1151, Kali Charan v. State of Uttar Pradesh. As against the above authorities the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon 1984 SCC (Cr.) 625, Ajay Dixit v. State of U. P. and 1985 ALJ 514, Bundu v. State of U. P.;