D.S.TEWATIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Rachhpal Singh claiming himself to be a student of Khalsa College, Amritsar, and detained in Central Jail, Amritsar, as under -trial for committing certain criminal offences, has impugned order, annexure P -1 dated 12.5.1983, passed by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, at a time when he was already in jail custody, on the ground that the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the relevant facts before passing the impugned order.
(2.) THE District Magistrate in his affidavit by way of reply to the petition denied the assertion that the detention order had been pased without due application of mind. Alongwith the written statement, following order dated 12.5.1983 has also been filed as annexure R.1, which is in the following terms "I have perused and carefully considered the material regarding Shri Rachhpal Singh s/o Gurdip Singh r/o village Verka, P.S. Sadar, Amritsar, at present confined in Central Jail, Amritsar. After careful consideration of the entire material, I am satisfied that the aforesaid Shri Rachhpal Singh has been indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order even while in judicial custody and it is necessary to detain him under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 with a view to prevent him from acting in the said manner in future. I am also conscious of the fact that Shri Rachhpal Singh is already confined in jail in connection with some criminal cases. However, in view of the material placed before me I am satisfied that the aforesaid confinement of Shri Rachhpal Singh in jail is not sufficient to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, detention order be issued accordingly. Perusal of annexure R.1 would show that the District Magistrate, who passed the detention order, reached his subjective satisfaction that a detention order under Section 3(2) read with Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, had to be passed regarding the detenu -petitioner on the material pertaining to his activities while in judicial custody in jail.
(3.) THE grounds of detention that Section 8 of the Act envisages supplying to a detenu do not refer in this case to any activity whatsoever much less one which could be considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as would be clear from the grounds, annexure P -2, supplied to the petitioner, material portion whereof is in the following terms : In pursuance of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the maintenance of National Security Act, 1980, you Rachhpal Singh s/o Gurdip Singh r/o Village Verka P.S. Sadar, Amritsar, are hereby informed that you are being detained on the grounds that you have been indulging in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as is clear from the facts stated in the following paragraphs : - 1. That Satinderjeet Singh @ P.T. assigned the work of setting on fire the shops of cigarettes, Biris to Jagjit Singh @ Bittu. In order to achieve the above purposes, between the night of 24/25 -1 -1983, you and Jagjit Singh @ Bittu tried to set on fire the pan, cigarettes shop of M/s Sadhu Ram and Sons in Bazar Gandianwala, Amritsar, with a piece of gunny bag after sprinkling kerosene oil on it. Since your above act came to the notice of the public, you did not succeed to set the shop on fire and ran away. In this connection case FIR No. 65 dated 25 -1 -83 under Section 436/511 IPC was registered in Police Station 'D' Division Amritsar. 2. That you and Jagjit Singh @ Bittu went to Quilla Bhangian and after staying there for a short while, set on fire the Pan -Biri cigarette shop of M/s Shiv Kumar Bhola Nath at 11.30 p.m. with a gunny bag having the petrol sprinkled on it. You were caught red -handed at the shop whereas your companion Jagjit Singh @ Bittu succeeded in running way. In this connection a case FIR No. 179 dated 13 -3 -1983 under Section 436 IPC was registered in Police Station 'D' Division, Amritsar. A) On account of the above activities, I, District Magistrate, Amritsar, being satisfied that you should be detained with a view to preventing you from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, therefore, I have passed an order for your detention with a view to preventing you from acting in aforesaid manner in future. Mr. Gurmukh Singh, after perusing the original file of the District Magistrate, has frankly stated that the file too contains no material pertaining to the activities of the detenu -petitioner while in jail custody which are said to have been taken into consideration by the District Magistrate, as disclosed by his order, annexure R. 1. The resultant situation that emerges is that, in fact, there existed no material before the District Magistrate to reach his satisfaction regarding the passing of the detention order in question. Hence, there is no option but to declare, the detention order to be palpably illegal and void ab initio and the same is, therefore, quashed. The detenu -petitioner shall be released if he is in jail only because of the impugned detention order.;