RAM BALI RAJBHAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Ram Bali Rajbhar, in this Habeas Corpus petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeks release from a detention ordered on 1-10-1973 by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, on the following grounds supplied on the same day to him: "(1) On 5-9-1973 at about 17.40 hrs., you along with your associates Anwar Hossain of 18/2, Mominpur Road, Subal Das of Jhupri at Dock East Boundary Road Calcutta, and others, all being armed with iron-rods, lathis and bombs created a great disturbance of public order by hurling bombs at the tea-stall of Lal Mohan Jadav at 19, Coal Berth, Calcutta, endangering the lives and safety of the stall-owner and other nearby shop-keepers, as he had refused to supply tea to you all, without payment. The incident brought wide spread panic in the locality, led to the closure of shops, suspension of vehicular traffic, thereby jeopardising the maintenance of public order.

(2.) The petitioner complains that the grounds of detention are "vague, false, mala fide, fanciful non-existent." It is submitted that there is no rational nexus if the grounds with permissible objects of preventive detention. It is urged that criminal offences for which the authorities charged with maintaining law and order an institute ordinary criminal prosecutions are not meant to be made the subject-matter of detention orders. "Public Order" it is contended, is something more serious than mere breach of the criminal law for which the offender must be dealt with under the ordinary law. "Public Order" mentioned in Section 3 (a) (ii), it is suggested, must be read in conjunction with the "security of the State" so that only a person who indulges in activities which endanger something akin to the security of the State should be deemed to be covered by provisions relating to preventive detention.

(3.) We think it is too late in the day to argue that there is any misuse of the provisions of Maintenance of Internal Security Act (hereinafter referred to a the Act) merely because, in order to arrive at a satisfaction that it is necessary to detain a person for the purposes of the security of the State or the maintenance a public order, some instances are given a criminal activity, whether they could have or have formed the subject-matter of successful or unsuccessful prosecution. (See Golam Hussain v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta, (1974) 4 SCC 530; Milan Banik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1214; Mohd. Salim Khan v. C. C. Bose, AIR 1972 SC 1670; Sasti Chowdhary v. State of West Bengal, (1973) 1 SCR 467. An order based upon such grounds cannot be said to be affected by extraneous considerations or become mala fide for this reason only. The legal position on this subject has been recently clarified by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 2154 at p 2160 where it was pointed out (p. 2160):