RAM PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to us for decision in pursuance of an order dated 20-11-1985 passed by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble S.S. Ahmad and Hon'ble Brijesh Kumar, JJ. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the petition has been referred to this Full Bench, facts will have to be stated in detail.

(2.) The petition has been filed by Ram Prasad Chaudhary against his detention tender the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The order of detention is dated 3-2-1985 and is Annexure 1 to the petition. The ground, containing the reasons for detention are dated 3-2-1985 and have been filed as Annexure 2 to the petition. The petitioner's case is that he has been the President of D.M.K. Party and had contested the election to Lok Sabha in December, 1984 against Chandra Shekhar Trupathi, a Congress candidate. The petitioner was defeated in the election but, after the elections were over in December, 1984, he intended to contest Uttar Pradesh Assembly Election to be held in March, 1985. For this purpose he declared his intention to contest the election from Kaptanganj Constituency of District Basti. The petitioner further stated that as soon as he came from Delhi on 5-2-1985 to file his nomination papers from Kaptanganj Constituency, he was arrested at Basti and sent to jail and was served with the detention order under the National Security Act. As stated earlier, Annexure 1 is the detention order. Annexure 2 is a copy of the grounds of detentions and the documents which were supplied to him. The petitioner's case is that he was previously detained under the provisions of National Security Ordinance, 1980 on 11-1-1982 but the detention order was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board and he was released from jail on 27-2-1982. The petitioner further states that a perusal of the grounds of detention reveals that the first ground mentioned in the grounds of detention relates to an incident dated 3-3-1981 which gave rise to Crime No. 31 of 1981. The incident relating to Crime No. 31 of 1981 which is ground No. 1 in the present detention order was also one of the grounds for his previous detention under the provisions of the Act vide detention order dated 3-8-1981. The grounds of previous detention order are filed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition. A perusal of Annexures 2 and 3 indicates that ground No. 6 of the previous detention order contained in Annexure 3 is ground No. 1 of the present detention order dated 3-2-1985. The petitioner's ease is that as the Advisory Board quashed his detention in regard to the incident dated 3-3-1981, the said ground is irrelevant for the purpose of his second detention. In regard to ground No. 2 of the detention order, the petitioner's case is that one Ram Ugrah Singh lodged a first information report in respect of incident dated 20-1-1985 which was registered as Crime No. 18 of 1985. The petitioner's case is that Ram Ugrah Singh is not an eye-witness to the murder case of Gomti Singh and it has been falsely alleged in the first information report that he was a witness in the case. A true copy of the first information report regarding the murder of Gomti Singh is filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition to prove that Ram Ugrah Singh was not a witness in that case. The contention of the petitioner is that the incident dated 20-1-1985 does not, in any manner, affect the public order and, therefore, the detention on that ground is liable to be set aside. In regard to third ground which relates to an incident dated 31-1-1985 which gave rise to Crime No. 15 of 1985, the petitioner's case is that it has been initiated due to political rivalry. In regard to third ground Ram Tej, who was informant in the case, has filed an affidavit in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Basti stating that he never lodged any report against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the police authorities had coerced Ram Tej to sign a blank paper and he never lodged any first information report against the petitioner. The petitioner contends that even if this ground is taken as it is, it does not, in any way affect public order and the order of detention is liable to be quashed. The petitioner further contends that the District Magistrate passed the order of detention without considering the fact that he was previously detained under the Act and the detention was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board. This fact was also not considered by the State Government either at the stage of passing the detention order or at the stage of confirming the order of detention. The detention order passed against the petitioner was approved on 3-2-1985 and the same was confirmed by the State Government on the advice of the Advisory Board on 25-3-1985. A copy of the confirmation order is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner's case is that the confirmation order passed by the State Government indicates that the fact that he was detained earlier was not taken into consideration by the State Government. In regard to ground No. 2, it is also maintained that it is similar to the one in previous detention order and this fact was also not considered either by the District Magistrate at the time of passing the detention order nor was it considered by the State Government while approving and confirming the detention order. The main ground in the writ petition is that the District Magistrate passed the detention order in an arbitrary manner and all the relevant material was not considered either by the District Magistrate or by the State Government. On these facts the petitioner prayed that the detention of the petitioner be quashed on the ground that the fact that he was previously detained and the detention order was revoked on the advice of the Advisory Board was not considered by the District Magistrate or by the State Government. The detention order is also challenged on the ground that the facts indicated in Annexure 2 do not make out a case of public order and, therefore, the petitioner's detention is illegal. The order was also challenged on the ground that ground No. 2 was intimately related to ground No. 1 and since ground No. 1 related to an incident dated 3-3-1981, grounds Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be ignored as they are stale grounds.

(3.) The petition was opposed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and two counter-affidavits were filed on behalf of the opposite parties. One affidavit is filed by Shri S.W. Yadav on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and another affidavit has been filed by Shri D.D. Sharma who was District Magistrate, Basti at the time when the detention order was passed. In the counter-affidavit filed by Shri D.D. Sharma, he denied that the petitioner has been detained in collusion with the police under the Act. He has also stated that the detention of the petitioner is bona fide and the order of detention has been passed by him after applying his mind to the documents which were supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention. The District Magistrate has admitted in his reply to paragraph 13 of the petition that ground No. 6 of detention order dated 3-8-1981 is the same as ground No. 1 of detention order dated 3-2-1985. In that connection he also states that the detention order dated 3-8-1981 was revoked by the State Government after the receipt of a report by the Advisory Board. It has also been stated that there is no legal bar according to which ground No. 6 of the detention order dated 3-8-1981 could not be made a ground of detention order dated 3-2-1985. The District Magistrate has further stated that after having examined the grounds mentioned in the detention order in respect of the incidents dated 20-1-1985 and 31-1-1985 which are grounds Nos. 2 and 3 of the grounds of detention order, he was satisfied that the detention order was legal as the material which has already been supplied to the petitioner revealed that on account of the incidents referred to as grounds Nos. 2 and 3, panic was created in the locality and shutters were pulled down and the public was terrorised on account of firing by the petitioner. He stated that on the material supplied to the petitioner, he was satisfied that the grounds related to public order and the said incidents adversely affected the public order and in order to prevent the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial or law and order, he passed the detention order and detained the petitioner under the Act. The paragraph 19 of the counter-affidavit, the District Magistrate has stated that "the deponent passed the detention order against the petitioner on 3-2-1985 after consideration of relevant material, including previous history of the petitioner. It is not disputed that earlier detention order dated 3-8-1981 was revoked by the State (Government. In paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit he has stated as follows :-