ISRAR ALIAS SAROO Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid writ petition no. 5765 of 1989 connected with writ petition no. 5766 of 1989 have been filed by lsrar alias Saroo and Inam respectively impugning the orders of detention passed against them dated 29-1-198V by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar separately. THE aforesaid orders were served on the petitioners on 31-9-1989 during the course of incarceration of the petitioners in the District Jail Muzaffarnagar. THE aforesaid two orders of detention were confirmed on 17th March 1969 by the State Government.

(2.) THE detention orders passed against the petitioners under section 3 (ii) of National Security Act 1980, consist of two grounds. THE first ground relates to an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 11-1-1989 ?at about 745 P.M. near the house of Meeran Dei situated in Mohalla Bagh Janki Das P. S. Kotwali District Muzaffarnagar in which complainant Maqdoon Ahmad had sustained a single gun shot injury in his leg and also one Smt. Shaida alias Munni a passer-by had received injuries as a result of being hit by a stray pellet from the firing resorted to by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the State. Sri Shamshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the above two grounds relied upon by the District Magistrate for detaining the petitioners under National Security Act are incapable of causing any disturbance of public order or displacement of the tempo of public life and the aforesaid two incidents can be ascribed to the problems relating to law and order. It was next contended by the learned counsel that the second ground is too stale to be taken into account for purposes of passing detention orders against the applicants- petitioners inasmuch as that the occurrence in the case had taken place as far back as five years, hence the ground cannot form part of the detention order or this ground cannot be relied upon to form the basis of detention order. It is next submitted by the learned counsel that the detention order rests on the solitary occurrence dated 11-1-1989 that two resulted from enmity between the parties and it cannot be calculated to have created fear or panic in the locality. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the occurrence in the case had taken place after the sun had set in and it was dark enough and the occurrence had lasted for a very short duration and so it cannot be said that the act in connection with the occurrence was germane to public order and in contrast, it posed a law and order problem.