CHANDRA PARKASH AGARWALA Vs. S G BOSE MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was arrested arid detained under rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules by the order of District Magistrate, Delhi on 14-8-1965. The order of dentention stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied from information received by him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, public safety, the defence of India and civil defence .He filed Criminnal writ petition No. 59-D/ 1965 in this Court impugning the legality and validity of his detention on 25.8.1965. The writ petition was admitted by the Motion Bench (Dulat and Shamshar Bahadur, JJ.) on 13-9-1965. In the return made to the rule in that case by Shri S. G. Bose Mullick, District Magistrate he averted that the order of detention had been passed after carefully considering the circumstances and after being satisfied that it was necessary to do so in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, civil defence, maintenance of public order and public safety. It was further sworn by the District Magistrate in the said writ stated that the petitioner had been exploiting the employees of the Delhi hospitals, University colleges, the Corporation and even members of the Police Force in Delhi and creating dissatisfaction in their ranks and threatening to agitate on very minor issues. Mr. S. G. Bose Mullick added in the said affidavit that the petitioner had recently been engaged in activities aimed at subverting the loyalty of the Police Force and that the petitioner had been openly advocating disobedience of the lower Police officials to the orders of their superiors.

(2.) The petitioner's criminal Writ Petition No. 59 -D of 1955 was dismissed by this Court (Dulat, J) on October 12, 1965. Mala fides were attributed in that case to the District Magistrate on the ground that the detention order was claimed to be due to some personal hostility between the petitioner and the District Magistrate and on the ground that the petitioner in his capacity as General Secretary of several trade unions in Delhi had been engaged in activities which somehow displeased the district authorities. Dulat, J. disposed of the petition on merits in the following words :-

(3.) All other contentions raised by the petitioner were also repelled by Dulat, J. While dismissing the writ petition. However, the learned Judge made the following observations towards the end of the judgment while dismissing the writ petition :-