BHAGAT RAM Vs. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the validity of his. detention and seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing his release. He was detained by an order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi exercising his powers under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 inasmuch as he was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him under the said Act. This order was approved by the Administrator of Delhi under Section 13 of the Act. The result is that the petitioner has been detained for a period of twelve months from the date of detention, Tiamely, 17-3-1986. The petitioner's representations to the detaining authority as well as the advisory board having failed, this writ petition has been filed by him.

(2.) Though several contentions have been raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner confined himself to two contentions. He "pointed out that the grounds of detention principally relied upon three incidents dated 25-10-1983,24-11-1985 and 12-3-1986. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these incidents do not relate or effect the maintenance of public order and at best they are merely incidents which relate to the maintenance of law and order. It is submitted that these three incidents do not give any ground for believing that the petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and it is, therefore, contended that his detention was not justified. The second contention raised by the learned counsel is based on the following circumstances. It is pointed out that in the first two of these three incidents referred to above, first information reports were lodged by the police and prosecution was initiated. The Metropolitan Magistrate who tried the petitioner for these offences acquitted him by his order dated 17-7-1986 in respect of the incident dated 25-10-1983 and "by the order dated 2-1-1987 in respect of the incident of 24-11-1985. It is submitted that, if at all, only these two incidents could be said to relate to public order and that since the petitioner has been acquitted in respect of these two offences, the whole basis of the detention order is knocked out and whatever might have been the initial justification for detaining the petitioner, we should "direct his release immediately as his continued detention after these acquittals cannot be countenanced.

(3.) Taking up the first contention of the petitioner, we may mention that basically the argument of the learned counsel that the detention is based on the three incidents above mentioned is correct. In this connection we should mention that the grounds of detention start with an enumeration of .as many as 11 incidents involving the petitioner in which first information reports have been lodged with the police in respect of incidents on various dates between 3-10-1974 and 22-2-1983. However, after narrating the above incidents the. grounds of detention recite as follows:-