MAXY MANUAL SABASTIAL ARONZO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the detenu who has filed this Criminal Writ Petition No. 503 of 1982 to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India through Jail challenging the legality and correctness of the detention order dated May 6, 1982, passed by the second Respondent under section 3 of the satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary to make an order directing that he be detained under section 3 of the National Security Act.

(2.) There is no dispute that the order of detention as well as the grounds were served upon the detenu. This Petition was originally filed by the detenu through Jail but subsequently Shri Dhun N. Canteenwala and Shri Satish R. Parekh, Advocates, filed their power on behalf of the detenu and amended the Petition. The grounds of detention are at page 4. There are in all five incidents which are referred to in the grounds of detention and which are treated as grounds of detention. It is needless to refer to all these grounds in detail since we are satisfied that the first ground pertains to the law and order and does not fall within the domain of public order as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated.

(3.) Ground No. 1 reads as under: On 26-4-1982 Miss Clara Anthony Fernandez, a teacher residing at Raut Chawl, R. No. 3, opposite Sitaladevi Temple, L. J. Road, Bombay, was at her above residence. At about 3 a.m. you started knocking and banging her door. She then got up and asked you as to who you are? When you told her that you are Maxy, she then opened the door and told you to go away, and warned you not to come to their house and disturb them thereafter. You then forced the entry into her house and started fisting on her mouth and stomach. You caught her hair and banged her mouth against the wall. When she shouted for help, the inmates of the house came to her rescue. On seeing them you took out a knife and warned them not to come ahead. You also threatened her not to shout otherwise you would kill her on the spot. You warned them not to report the incident to the police and left the place. Due to the assault Smt. Clara Anthony Fernandez sustained injuries. In this connection an offence has been registered at Mahim Police Station under Section 451-506(1l)-337 I.P.C. vide their C.R. No. 277/82. In this case you were arrested. In regard to this ground No. 1, it is averred by the Petitioner in his Petition as follows: 1o Without prejudice to the above, none of the grounds pertain to the maintenance of public order, and pertain at the highest to law and order. In order to stand the test of validity, each ground must separately and independently relate to public order. Each of the grounds even if accepted at face value do not affect the public at large or the even tempo of life of the community. None of the grounds has the potential of adversely affecting the public either by the nature of the act or its reach upon society. Ground No. 1 pertains to an alleged quarrel between the Petitioner and one Clara Fernandez, within the four walls of her house. There is no allegation that anyone outside that private residence even came to know of the alleged incident, much less was terrozied by it. While the allegations in ground No. 1 are categorically denied it has the colour of a private quarrel as the said Clara Fernandez and the Petitioner were at one time on intimate terms. In fact, the said Clara Fernandezs relatives are responsible for forcing the lady to lodge a false complaint against the Petitioner. In fact, even when the Petitioner was lodged at Yerwada Central Prison and Bombay Central Prison under the present detention order, the said Clara Fernandez has been visiting the Petitioner in Jail and the Jail records will reveal the said ClaraTs visits. It is unconscionable that a false case lodged at the instance of the said Claras relatives to dissuade the said Clara from seeing the Petitioner, and to remove the Petitioner from the scene, has been made a ground of detention to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The alleged offences covered by ground No. 1 are bailable in nature, and there was, in any event, nothing in the said ground to make Respondent No. 2 accept the allegations as true especially when a case under the ordinary criminal law was commenced against the detenu. The incident did not take place at a public place and members of one family are allegedly affected and are supposed witnesses to the same. It is humbly submitted that ground No. 1 is clearly irrelevant to the question of the maintenance of public order and the entire detention order is vitiated as it is impossible to predicate to what extent this irrelevant ground weighed with the detaining authority in deciding to issue the order,T