STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. BALDEO PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal with a certificate issued by the Nagpur High Court under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution raises a question about the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946 as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950. It appears that against the respondent Baldeo Prasad the State of Madhya Pradesh, appellant 1, passed an order on June 16, 1955, under S. 4-A of the Act. Subsequently the District Magistrate, Chhindwara, appellant 2, passed another order dated June 22, 1955, communicating to the respondent the first externment order passed against him. The respondent then filed a writ petition in the High Court (No. 249 of 1955) under Art. 226 challenging the validity of the said orders, inter alia on the ground that the Act under which the said orders were passed was itself ultra vires. The appellant disputed the respondent's contention about the vires of the Act. The High Court, however, has upheld the respondent's plea and has held that Ss. 4 and 4-A of the Act are invalid, and since the two sections contain the main operative provisions of the Act, according to the High Court, the whole Act became invalid. It is the correctness of this conclusion which is challenged before us by the appellants.

(2.) It would be convenient at this stage to refer briefly to the scheme of the Act and its relevant provisions. The Act was passed in 1946 and came into force on September 7, 1946. It was subsequently and the amended Act came into force on November 24, 1950. As the preamble shows the Act was passed because it was thought expedient to provide for the control of goondas and for their removal in certain circumstances from one place to another. Section 2 defines a goonda as meaning a hooligan, rough or a vagabond and as including a person who is dangerous to public peace or tranquility. It would thus be seen that the definition of the word "goonda" is an inclusive definition and it includes even person who may not be hooligans, roughs or vagabonds if they are otherwise dangerous to public peace or tranquility. Section 3 (1) empowers the State Government to issue a proclamation that disturbed conditions exist or are likely to arise in the areas specified in such proclamation if the State Government is satisfied that public peace or tranquility in any area is disturbed or is likely to be disturbed. The area in respect of which a proclamation is thus issued is described in the Act as the proclaimed area. Section 3(2) limits the operation of the proclamation to three months from its date and provides that it may be renewed by notification from time to time for a period of three months at a time. The first step to be taken in enforcing the operative provisions of the Act thus is that a proclamation has to be issued specifying the proclaimed areas, and the limitation on the power of the State Government to issue such a proclamation is that the proclamation can be issued only after it is satisfied as required by S. 3(1), and its life will not be longer than three months at a stretch. Sections 4 reads thus:

(3.) Section 4-A reads thus: