MUKESH TYAGI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order of detention dated 5th August, 1995 passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad against the petitioner and also a direction to the respondents that he be set at liberty forthwith.

(2.) THE impugned order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 5th August, 1995 under the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in exercise of the power vested in him under the provision of sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. A copy of this order is Annexure 8-B to the petition. Grounds of detention (Annexure 8-A to the petition) were also served on the petitioner. THE grounds may be eummarised as under: On 30th July, J995 at 9. 30 a. m. in the town of Hapur at National High Way inside Sneh Nursing Home situate at Delhi Road belonging to Dr. Vimal Kumar Sabbarwal and his wife Dr. Kusum Sabbarwal, you demanded a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from them and when they refused to comply with your demand, your whipped out a revolver and fired shot at Dr. Vimal Kumar Sabbarwal, but he escaped and thereafter you fired shots at the gate of the Nursing Home and said that he would destory the Nursing Homo. As a result of this, the petients and their attendents got terrorised, shops were closed and traffic came to a stand still. A case under Sections 452, 307, 384, 336 and 506, I. P. O. , was registered against you. You had been threatening the doctor for the previous 3-4 days saying that if he wanted to run his Nursing Home, he must give you Rs. 1 Lakh; otherwise his children would be abducted. On that very day at about 12. 30 in the noon you were arrested and from your custody a country made pistol and cartridges were recovered from your possession and with great difficulty law and order situation could be restored.

(3.) IN Attorney General for INdia v. Amratlal Prajivandas, 1994 SCO (Crl) 1325, which is a decision rendered by nine learned Judges of the Apex Court, it was held that it is beyond dispute that an order of datention can be based upon one single ground: "though ordinarily one act may not be held sufficient to sustain an order of detention, one act may sustain an order of detention if the act is of such a nature as to indicate that it is an organised act or a manifestation of organised activity. The gravity and nature of the act is also relevant. The test is whether the act is such that it gives rise to an infereance that the person would continue to indulge in similar prejudicial activity. " It was further observed: "if, however, in any given case a single act is found to be not sufficient to sustain the order of detention that may well be quashed but it cannot be stated as a principle that one single act cannot constitute the basis for detention. "