MOHD SHAHID Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohd. Shahid, the petitioner before us, was arrested on March 24, 1984 and detained in Central Jail, Tihar New Delhi, by virtue of an order dated March 24, 1984, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, and approved by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi on March 29, 1984 under sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. Grounds of detention were also duly served on the petitioner within the time postulated by Section 8 of the aforesaid Act. This is challenged by the petitioner by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of habeas corpus and a prayer that be set at liberty inasmuch as the aforesaid detention order itself is bad in the eye of law and his continued detention is violative of his fundamental rights.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged three grounds by way of challenge to the detention as well as continued detention. The first is that necessary and relevant documents were not given to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The second is that full papers in regard to the detention were not sent to the Central Government, as required by sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the aforesaid Act resulting in denial of a right of the petitioner. The Central Government might have on consideration of the entire relevant material revoked the detention order, as it is authorised to do under Section 14 of the Act. The third ground of attach is that the petitioner does not know how to read and write Urdu and, therefore, there was no effective communication of the grounds of detention to him so as to comply with the requirements of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) Referring to each ground, there being 13 in number in the grounds of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner analysed the lacunae as under. Regarding ground 1 it is mentioned that the incident in which the petitioner was discharged has been taken into consideration which could be one. Reliaflce, has been placed on smt. Bimla Dewan v. The Lt. Governor of Delhi . Further it is said that the incident mentioned in ground 1 could, at best be regarded as a law and order problem and not a public order problem. Further, copy of the challan was not given to the petitioner. Regarding ground 2 it was said that the documents pertaining to search have not been given to the petitioner. For ground 3 it was said that documents regarding search have not been given. For ground 4 it was said that a copy of the kalandra was not given and it was only a law and order problem. Regarding ground 5 it was said that copies of documents pertaining to personal search were not given. Regarding ground 6 it was said that a copy of the calendars was not given. Grounds 7, 8 and 9 were attacked as being vague and irrelevant. About grounds 10 and 11 it was said that apart from recording of the note in the police diary nothing further happened and what was recorded also shows that it was only a law and order problem. About ground 12 it was said that it could not be taken into consideration as the petitioner was discharged in regard to this incident. Regarding ground 13 it was said that the material documents were not supplied.