ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, Islam petitioner has challenged validity of his continued detention in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi, dated 2-1-1985, issued by him in exercise of his powers under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980.

(2.) The order of detention has been passed only on one ground which recites that in the night of 18/19th October, 1984, the petitioner along with his associates, pyarey Lal, Teras Yadav, Rajved Yadav, Sewalal Bind, Ramraj, Rambachan, Udairaj Bind, Ramu Katwar and Hakim alias Saroj Khan was cutting electricity wire and stealing the same. On getting information, Station Officer of P.S. Aurai reached the spot, arrested the petitioner and his companions and recovered electricity wire worth Rs. 65,000/- alongwith a diesel jeep. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his associates at Police Station Aurai for offences under sections 379/411 I.P.C. The grounds further stated that on account of this cutting of the wire by petitioner and his associates supply of electricity was adversely affected and several acres of land could not be irrigated and some of the village industries were closed on account of non-supply of electricity. This affected the maintenance of supply and service essential to the community. The order further stated that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services essential to the community, it was necessary to detain him.

(3.) The petitioner submitted a representation to the State Government but the same was rejected and on the recommendation of the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the petitioners detention by its order dated 5-2- 1985. Initially the District Magistrate had issued an order on 19/20th October, 1984, in exercise of his power under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the petitioners detention, but since that order could not be approved by the Government within twelve days of the order of the detaining authority, it was revoked and a fresh order was issued by the District Magistrate on 2-1-1985 in pursuance of which the petitioner is continuing in detention. The validity of the order dated 2-1-1985 has not been assailed before us in view of section 14(2) of the Act which permits making of another detention order in case the earlier detention order falls through on account of the State Governments failure to approve the same within twelve days from the date of the issue of the order.