JAGDISH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner detained by the order of the District Magistrate for anti-social proclivity prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community challenges its validity in this petition for habeas corpus.

(2.) Mr. Frank Anthony has vigorously urged two vital defects as vitiating the detention order incarcerating the petitioner, based mainly on the unreported ruling of this Court in Prabhu Dayal v. District Magistrate, Kamrup W. P. No. 1496 of 1973 D/- 11-10-1973 = (AIR 1974 SC 183 = 1974 Cri LJ 286) the wellknown Lohia case AIR 1960 SC 633 = (1960) Cri LJ 1002) and a few other peripheral observations in other decisions. The District Magistrate was uncertain whether he would detain the petitioner to prevent disruption of maintenance of supplies or of services essential to the life of the community and such a mindless order suffered from a fatal genetic disease diagnosed by this Court in many decisions as fatal, runs the submission.

(3.) Now, the admitted facts and the authoritative law and their interaction. It is best to begin with the impugned order itself which reads :