SHAMSHER AHMAD ALIAS BILLA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed against the detention of the petitioner u/S. 3(2) of the National Security Act in pursuance of an order dated 17-9-1992 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital directing the petitioner to be detained as it was necessary to detain him to maintain the public order.

(2.) The grounds furnished to the petitioner indicate that he is the leader of the gang which indulges in illegally entering the reserve forest and cutting away the trees find that the petitioner has generated terror in his capacity as a parson who smuggles out the jungle property. The people with a view to save their lives and property do not muster up courage to report against the petitioner. Because of the continuous felling of trees the ecological balance is getting disturbed with the result that the rainfall has decreased. The hill people are finding the water supply dwindling inasmuch as in the hill region tube wells or other sources of water are not available and the scanty rains dry down the source of drinking water. Due to indiscriminate cutting of jungles the ecological balance is getting disturbed and persons living in hills apprehend that if this process of jungle cutting continued then staggering problem of drinking water would stare on their face with the result that people are getting scared and are agitated. Hence to prevent the petitioner to cut further jungles and thereby maintain the public peace the detention of the petitioner was necessary. To substantiate the allegation that the petitioner was a potential threat to the maintenance of public order as has been described above, six different activities of the petitioner have been enumerated in support of the grounds of detention. Apart from that a L.I.U. report No. 604 dated 6-8-1992 and certain newspaper reports have also been quoted to support the allegation against the petitioner on the basis of which the District Magistrate said that he was satisfied that the petitioner being a potential threat to the maintenance of public order, his detention was necessary.

(3.) Sri Murli Dhar learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner leave no room to doubt that the petitioner's activity was ultimately to affect the supply of drinking water in the hill region. This problem of non availability of drinking water could be on account of the petitioner cutting the jungles. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the real object to pass the order of detention against the petitioner was to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner which would have affected the supply and services essential to the community viz of drinking water. However, the detaining authority instead of mentioning in his order and the grounds of detention that the detention of the petitioner was needed to maintain the supply and services essential to the community says that the petitioner's detention was necessary to prevent him to act in a manner which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This defect in the order of detention, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, goes to the root of the matter inasmuch as the order neither fulfills the object for which the petitioner is alleged to have been detained, nor does it show due application of mind by the detaining authority to the problem before him which, 'in turn, demonstrates his casual and mechanical approach on the subject for detaining the petitioner.