RAM CHANDRA MISRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. An order of deten tion under Section 3 (2) of National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed against the petitioner on 20-3-1985 by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Before the order could be executed the present writ petition was filed on 30-4-1985 praying that a writ in the nature of man damus be issued directing the respondents to refrain from taking any action against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid order and further to direct that the respondents should not proceed to arrest or detain him.

(2.) A copy of the detention order, dated 20-3-1985 and also the grounds of detention have been filed along with the supplemen tary counter-affidavit of Sri P. K. Pandey Addl. City Magistrate Allahabad which was filed in pursuance of the order dated 30-7-1991 passed by this Court. The order recites that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner Ram Chandra Misra alias Lal Sahab from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was neces sary to make an order directing that he be detained under Section 3 (2) of the Act. The grounds of detention mention about three criminal cases in which the petitioner was involved. It is alleged that at about 7. 30 p. m. on 27-11-1984 the petitioner along with his companions came to Saidabad on a Jeep and resorted to firing in which Deomani was injured and Brijesh Kumar was killed and the body of the la tier was also taken away on the Jeep. A case was registered as crime No. 288 of 1984 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 201, I. P. C. at P. S. Handia in which after investigation chargesheet has been submitted in court. The second ground is that on 5-3-1985 when the election for Legislative Assembly was going on the petitioner along with his companions fired upon a candidate Rakesh Dhar Tripathi at a polling station in which Ram Sajiwan was killed on the spot. The body of Ram Sajiwan was then placed inside a thatched hut which was set on fire. Due to the terror the polling parties ran away from the polling Station and the process of election was stopped. A case was registered as Crime No. 24-A of 1985 under Sections 147,148,149,302,201, 435,436, 307 and 404,i. P. C. at P. S. Utraon and after investigation chafgesheet has been submitted in court. The third ground is that on 6-3-1985 repelling had to be done in eightpolling stations in Handia constituen cy. The petitioner along with his com panions kept big and heavy logs of timber on the tri-junction of Sirsa-Saidabad road and G. T. Road, due to which the traffic on the road was completely stopped and the poll ing parties which had to reach the polling station could not do so. A case was then registered as crime No. 49 of 1985 under Sections 143,144,146, and 341,i. P. C. at P. S. Handia in which after investigation char gesheet has been submitted. The order passed by the District Magistrate was ap proved by the State Government under Sec tion 3 (4) of the Act on 28- 3-1985 (Annexure S. C. A. 3):

(3.) THE main question which requires consideration is that if there is delay m ex ecuting the detention order, can it be held that the same had been passed for a wrong purpose. THE dictionary meaning of the word 'purpose' is a result which it is desired to obtain and is kept in mind in performing an action. Section 3 (2) of the Act provides that the Central Government or the State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. THE im pugned detention, order dated 20-3-1985 recites that the District Magistrate was satisfied that in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him under Section 3 (2) of the Act. THE grounds of detention show that the petitioner resorted to firing upon a candidate at a polling sta tion in which one person was killed and his body was set on fire due to which terror spread in the area and the polling parties ran away resulting in the election process being stopped. THE third ground shows that the petitioner blocked the main road due to which the government officials and other could not reach the polling station to per form their duty in connection with the repoll. THEse grounds show in unmistakable terms that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. THE first ground which related to the firing done by the petitioner and his companions in which one person died and one was injured in Saidabad town and the body of the deceased was taken away could also lead to disturbance of public order. Thus there was sufficient material with the District Magistrate on which he could arrive at a satisfaction that with a view to prevent ing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to detain him, and he could very well pass a detention order under Section 3 (2) of the Act. THErefore it cannot be held that the order has been passed for a wrong purpose.