GHANSHYAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges his detention under an order dated 27th August, 1984 made by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, under section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980. There are several grounds taken in the petition for challenging validity of the order of detention, but it is not necessary to refer to them since we find that there are four grounds which are sufficient to dispose of this petition. To appreciate these grounds it is necessary to notice few facts.

(2.) The order of detention was made on 27th August, 1984, and it was based on subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, Saharanpur, 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. This subjective satisfaction was founded on five incidents of murder and assault as contained in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner. Ground No. 1 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on 6.9.1982 while ground No. 2 relates to an incident of 24-11-1982 and ground No. 3 refers to an incident dated 6.9.1982. Ground No. 4 relates to an incident of 27th July, 1983, while ground No. 5 relates to an incident alleged to have taken place on July 12, 1984. Out of the five grounds, four grounds relate to the incidents of 1982 and 1983 which are quite old and stale. If the petitioners detention was necessary so as to prevent him from indulging into similar activities for the purpose of maintaining public order, one would expect that the District Magistrate would have made an order of detention as early as 1982 or 1983, but the order of detention was passed on August 27, 1984. There was undue delay in making the detention order against the petitioner on the grounds Nos. 1 to 4. It would be reasonable to assume that the District Magistrate of Saharanpur, if he was genuinely and reasonably satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order, would have acted with greater promptitude in making the order of detention and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time for carrying on the activities which are alleged to be prejudicial to public order. For all these reasons the petitioners detention on grounds Nos. 1 to 4 is not sustainable.

(3.) As regards ground No. 5, it relates to an incident which is alleged to have taken place on 12-7-1984. The petitioner is alleged to have kidnapped Sunil Yadav along with his associates from the verandah of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur. The petitioner is alleged to have used force in taking away Sunil Yadav in a car. As a result of this incident the entire court compound was gripped with terror and fear. A report of this incident was lodged at the police station and during investigation Om Singh witness told the police that the petitioner was involved in the incident. This incident relates to a single act of kidnapping of an individual by the petitioner and his associates. By its own nature it has no potentiality to disturb the public peace and tranquility. A solitary incident directed against a particular individual even if it may cause scare temporarily in the locality cannot be held to affect public order. No material has been placed before the Court to show that this incident of kidnapping of Sunil Yadav had the potentiality to disturb the even life of the community. We are clearly of the opinion that the petitioners detention on ground No. 5 is not sustainable as the act alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not relate to public order, instead it relates to law and order.