- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, J. In these five writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for quashing the orders passed by the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad, on 7-10-1997 under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directing their detention and for a direction to the respondents for their release forthwith. Since the impugned detention orders are based on the same incident, are couched in similar language and the writ petitions involve common facts and points of law, the cases were heard together with consent of learned Counsel for the parties and they are being disposed of by this judgment. For the sake of convenience Writ Petition No. 44205 of 1997 filed by Atiq Ahmad is taken as the leading case.
(2.) IN the grounds of detention it is stated, inter alia that on 25-7-1997 at 7. 45 a. m. Sri Afaq son of Sri Shirajuddin, resi dent of Kasari Masari was going towards Chakia crossing from his house followed by his father Sri Shirajuddin, who was going to the residence of a Judge if the High Court. When they reached the turn ing of Manna Mahajan Atiq Ahmad and his associates were standing there armed with rifle and gun, when Afaq Ahmad ar rived at the spot one of the associates of the petitioners Mohd. Laeek fired at him as a result of which he fell down and thereafter the petitioner and his associates continued firing at Afaq as a result of which he died at the spot. When Shirajuddin raised an alarm attracting attention of the public, the petitioner and his association ran away towards Kasaria road firing shots in the air. It is further stated in the grounds of deten tion that the incident caused stampede and a sense of fear and terror amongst the people of the locality. People ran away leaving their vehicles. Trollies and rick shaws carrying school children left the spot. IN the incident a passer-by also received a gun shot. A total desolation (Sannata) prevailed at the spot. The shut ters of the shops and doors and windows of the houses in the vicinity remained closed. Public order was disturbed. On the basis of the incident Case Crime No. 534 of 1997 under Sections 302/147/148/149,i. P. C. was registered at police station Khuldabad in the District of Allahabad and the inves tigation is continuing. It is also stated in the grounds of detention that the petitioners are detained in Central Jail Naini but their pairokars are making ef forts to get them released on bail. There is every like hood that after being released on bail the petitioners will again indulge in such criminal activities which will be prejudicial to public order. On the basis noted above, the Dis trict Magistrate, Allahabad, as stated in the grounds of detention, was satisfied that the petitioner are likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public order and in order to prevent them from acting in such manner it is necessary that the petitioners should be detained. In compliance with Section 8 of the Act the petitioners were informed that if they want to make a representation to the State Government against the or ders of detention, they could address it to the Home Secretary of the State Govern ment and send the same through the Su perintendent of Jail as soon as possible. The petitioners were also informed that the matter will be referred to the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act within three weeks of their detention and if their representations are received late the same will not be considered by the Advisory Board. The petitioners were further in formed that if they want to make a repre sentation to the President or the Central Government they could address the same to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home, Department of Internal Security, North Block, New Delhi and send it through the Superin tendent Central Jail as soon as possible. The petitioners were also informed that if they want personal hearing before the Advisory Board under Section 11 (1) of the Act they should specifically mention the same in their representations or in form the State Government through the Superintendent Jail. It is relevant to state here Thai the petitioners were arrested in the criminal case between 26-7-1997 and 31 '7-1997 and while they were in jail the orders of deten tion under the Act were passed on 7-10- 1997. The detention orders were served on the petitioners on 9-10-1997. The orders of detention were approved by the State Government on 18-10-1997. After receipt of the report of the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the detention orders on 26-11-1997 in which it was stated that detenu shall remain in detention for a period of 12 months from 9-10-1997. The petitioners made a representation to the State Government and also to the Central Government through the Superintendent of Naini Jail on 24-10-1997. Petitioners' repre sentations were rejected by the Central Government on 5-12- 1997. The rejection orders were communicated to the petitioners on 20-12-1997.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the orders of detention mainly on the grounds:- 1. that the incident stated in the grounds of the detention relates to law and order and not public order; 2. that a solitary incident of murder without anything more cannot be the basis of an order of preventive detention under the Act; 3. that the detention orders should not have been passed against the petitioners, who were already in Jail; 4. that certain material documents, which, had a bearing on the matter and could have influenced the decision of the detaining authority in favour of the petitioners were not placed before it; 5. that the provisions in sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act was not complied with; and That there was undue and unexplained delay in consideration of petitioners' repre sentations and in communication of rejection orders to them on account of which continued detention of the petitioners has been rendered illegal. Points Nos. 1 and 2. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged, elucidating the points noted above, That the grounds of detention read as a whole refer to a single incident of crime against an individual committed out of personal animosity. The incident, even if believed, relates to law and order which is to be dealt with under the criminal law and does not relate to public order so as to attract the provisions of the Act for preventive detention.;