UPENDRA SINGH Vs. ADHYAKCHA JANPAD KARAGAR GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. Malaviya, J. Petitioner Upendra Singh was detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act by an order dated 26-9-1996 passed by the District Magistrate Ghazipur. Translated, the order of detention would read as follows- "order No. 7 dated 29-9-1996 Because Upendra Singh son of Mahesh Singh r/o Goshandepur, P. S. Karanda, District Ghazipur is acting in prejudicial activities such as relating to anti-social elements, security of state, maintenance of public order and main tenance of services and supplies essential to the community and since keeping in view the prevailing circumstances and the possible cir cumstances I am satisfied as the District Magistrate, Ghazipur that to prevent Upendra Singh to act in any manner which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of security and services essential to the community and for the maintenance or public order it is necessary so to do hence exercising the powers under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act, I direct that Upendra Singh son of Mahesh Singh r/o Goshandepur, P. S. Karanda, district Ghazipur who is a man of criminal antecedent and is a renowned and dagerous and is at present detailed in the district jail in connection with crime No. 521/96 under Section 302, IPC but is trying to obtain bail wherein he is likely to be released on bail and whereafter he would be disturbing the maintenance of public order hence I direct him to be detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act in the district jail Ghazipur as an ordinary prisoner. Issued 29th September, 1996 under my signature and seal. Sd. /- Illegible 29-9-96 (Mamrej Singh) District Magistrate, Ghazipur"

(2.) THE only point which has been contended by Sri P. S. Mishra learned Counsel for the petitioner is that whereas in the order of detention the District Magistrate has mentioned two grounds viz. to prevent the petitioners to act in a manner which was likely to affect the security and services essential to com munity and the maintenance of public order, on which he was satisfied that detention of the petitioner was necessary, in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner the District Magistrate had mentioned that detention of the petitioner was necessary only for the maintenance of public order. It is consequently urged that shows casualness on the part of the Detaining Authority in passing the order of detention which vitiates the order of detention passed against the petitioner. In this connection Sri D. S. Mishra has relied on the two cases of the Supreme Court.

(3.) HOWEVER Sri Arvind Kumar Tripathi learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the allegation of casual-ness cannot be found in the instant case. He has relied on paragraph 3 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Manraj Singh the Detaining Authority which is a composite reply to the contents of paragraphs 1,2,3, 4,5,6,8,10 and 38 of the petition wherein meeting the allegation paragraph 6 of the petition in which it had been specifically averred that the order as mentioned above passed by the detaining authority was a result of his casual and mechanical exer cise of power the District Magistrate had made the following reply ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How ever, in the order due to mistake it has been typed out that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and public order it is necessary to pass the detention order against the petitioner. It should have been only with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in the manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This error, occurred in the order, is highly regretted. The deponent has not passed the detention order against the petitioner for preventing the detention order against the petitioner for preventing him from acting in the manner prejudicial to the supplies and services essential to the community, as there was no material placed before the deponent regarding this fact. "