STELLA ANTHONY MONTERIO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only important point involved in this case is that the three incidences which are relied by the detaining authority for issuing impugned order of detention concerns about the law and order or about public order. It is contended by Mr. Karmali, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the incidences relied by the detaining authority pertain to law and order situation and not public order and, therefore, the impugned order of detention is beyond the scope of Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 and, therefore, is illegal, void and inoperative. Few facts which are material for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:

(2.) THE petitioner who is the wife of the detenu filed this writ petition challenging the detention order which is at Exh. F dated 14th January 1991 issued by the 3rd Respondent. In the grounds of the said detention order, a reference is made to the three incidences on the basis of which theearlier detention order dated 16th August 1990 and re-detention order of 14th January 1991 were issued against the detenu. The three incidences as alleged by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention are as under:

(3.) FTER going through the afroesaid three incidences, we are of the opinion that each one of the said incidences can be dealt with by ordinary law and cannot come within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, more particularly from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. As held in several cases by the Supreme Court, the provisions of the National Security Act are not to be made applicable in cases where ordinary law is in a position to cope with the situation. According to us, the three cases referred to in the detention order are not such so as to create maintenance of public order situation. We have also meticulously gone through the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 3. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said affidavit, Respondent No. 3 contended that the said three incidences has nexus with the maintenance of public order and, therefore, the detaining authority was justified in issuing the impugned order. We are not in agreement with the said contention as according to us, the three cases referred to in the detention order can come within the ambit of ordinary law and can be dealt with accordingly. At this stage we may further mention the statement made by the learned Counsel Mr. Karmali on behalf of the detenu that in fact in future, he intends to lend a peaceful life with his neighbours. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we set aside and quash the impugned order dated 14th January 1991 which is at Exh. F. Writ petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a ). Detenu is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case or cases as the case may be. Petition allowed.