HARBANSH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions have been filed by Sri Hira Lal, Harbansh and Munna Lal who have all been detained by separate orders of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 29.3.89 passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act on the ground that the petitioners were affecting the maintenance of public order.

(2.) THE main contention of Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detention order must fail as the activity of the petitioners is not referable to a problem of the maintenance of public order but is confined to the problem of law and order. Since in all the three petitions one of the activities of the petitioners was of 3.3.89 and was the common activity, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that he was confining his arguments in respect of this activity alone because if he could not succeed in proving that the activity dated 3.3.89 of the petitioners was not an activity connected with the maintenance of public order, then it would be no use his arguing the case on the basis of other activities. In view of this fact it will be relevant to quote briefly the activities of the petitioner dated 3.3.89 which translated briefly would be as follows.

(3.) THE ground mentioned in support of the detention order further mentions that the petitioners were in jail but were trying to get released on bail. As there was apprehension that if released on bail in near future they would again indulge in similar activities which were calculated to affect the main­tenance of public order, the detaining au­thority was satisfied that in case the peti­tioners indulged in similar activities again that would disrupt the maintenance of public order. Consequently with a view to maintain the public order the orders of detention were passed against the petitioners.