AYYA ALIAS AYUB Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the detenu - Ayya alias Ayub, son of Babu Khan, residence No. 100, Khernagar, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut - challenges the order of detention dated 28-2-1988 passed by the district Magistrate, Meerut, ordering the detention of the petitioner under S. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on the said authority's satisfaction that such detention is necessary with a view to preventing petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the "public-order". At the time of the passing of the order, petitioner was already in judieial custody in connection with a criminal prosecution arising out of the incident referred to in one of the grounds of detention.

(2.) Section 3(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Central Government or the State Government, may make an order with respect to any person for purposes of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public-order. The subsection provides for detention on certain other grounds which are not germane to the present matter as the avowed object of the impugned detention is in relation to, and for the purposes, of, the maintenance of public order. Section 5A of the Act also provides that where a person has been detained on two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds. The object of S. 5A is that if any of the grounds is found to be vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected with the detenu or is invalid for any other reason whatsoever, it should be open to the detaining-authority to support the detention order on such ground or grounds as may not be so vitiated.

(3.) We have heard Shri R. K. Garg, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the detaining-authority. Shri Garg strenuously contended that the impugned detention is an instance of a demonstrable abuse of power and the grounds are wholly ultra vires of the power of detention in that - quite apart from the falsity of the allegations and other legal infirmities - the grounds, even assuming to be true, are incapable in law of producing the satisfaction of any apprehension in regard to the maintenance of the public order. The grounds, at the worst, learned counsel contends do no more than to suggest a possible 'law and order' situation and not a 'public order' situation. The detention, it is urged, is also vitiated by a non application of mind by an omission to consider material capable of influencing the satisfaction. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad. however, sought to support the order of detention, relying upon the records of the proceedings and the affidavit filed by the detaining-authority. The concerned police officers have also filed their counter- affidavits.