MADHU ALIAS MAHADU MANGAL TARE AND PRAKASH ALIAS PAKYA DHARAMJI KALYANKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution on filed by the detenu Mahadu @ Madhu Mangal Tare and the other by the detenu Prakash & Pakya Dharamji Kalyankar seek to challenge the orders of detention issued against them under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for brevity called the Act). A common question of law as to the interpretation of the provisions of the National Security Act (2nd Amendment) Ordinance No. 6 of 1984 where the said Act is amended, arise in both these petitions. It would, therefore, be convenient to dispose of these two petitions by a common judgment. Before we proceed to consider the provisions of the said Ordinance it would be necessary to State the facts relating to the two petitions before us. Before we take up for consideration the provisions incorporated in the ordinance we would prefer to deal with the submissions which are unrelated to the ordinance first. Criminal Writ Petition No. 112 of 1984. In this petition the detenu has challenged the order dated September 23, 1983 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane, under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act directing detention of the detenu with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The order was served on the detenu the same day. The grounds of detention were also communicated to the detenu the same day at the time of serving the order of detention on him. By order dated October 1, 1983 the Government of Maharashtra approved the said order made by the Detaining Authority. The grounds communicated to the detenu are as under :- 1. You are a worker in Ajantha Paper company in which you and your associates were trying to bring Dr. Datta Samants Maharashtra General Kamgar Union since 1982. As you were indulging in go slow, violent and terrorising activities against the loyal workers of the Ajantha Paper Mill Company, situated at Vadavali Village, the Management of the said company had suspended you and your associates with effect from 20-9-1982. Therefore, you again started your violent activities of assaulting the loyal workers and thereby created a reign of terror at Vadavali Village in Kalyan. The loyal workers of the company do not dare even to come out of the factory premises due to your threatening and terrorising activities which can be seen from the below mentioned incidents.

(2.) From the above incidents it will be seen that you are a desperate worker resorting to violent and terrorising activities due to which the loyal workers of the Ajantha Paper Mill are feeling unsecured and the atmosphere of terror is prevailing in the premises of Ajantha Paper Mills at Vadavali and the adjoining area and localities in Kalyan town. Due to your terrorising activities, the public order in the above localities is disrupted and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to detain you under the provisions of the National Workers Security Act, 1980 to allay the fear in the minds of terror striken workers in the industrial complex Vadavali and the residents of the above localities".

(3.) Mr. Malvankar, the learned Counsel appearing for the detenu has submitted that none of the grounds has any rational connection with the aspects of maintenance of public order. According to him, these incidents have arisen out of the labour dispute between the employees and the Management and at the most it can be said that they have some relation with the maintenance of law and order. It is not possible to accept this submission. A perusal of the incidents clearly go to show that they have taken place at a public place and the intention was to create terror in the minds of the employees who did not support the union to which the detenu belonged. Thus all these incidents read together clearly go to show that they are affected a fairly large segment of the society. viz. the employees residing in the industrial complex. It is not necessary that each and every member of the public in the locality should be affected in order to draw the conclusion that the prejudicial activity is likely to affect the maintenance of the public order. The incidents clearly go to show that they have taken place nearabout the industrial complex and were intended to strike a terror in the minds of the workmen of the factory. It is not a case of an individual dispute or an isolated incident which has no bearing to the aspect of public order. The incidents show that the intention was to create fear in the minds of the loyal workers i.e. workers who did like to work in the factory and further who were reluctant to join the labour union to which the detenu belonged. The incidents are clearly of a grave nature and involved the detenu and his associates on one side and the workmen who opposed to them on the other. We, therefore, see no merit in the contention that the incidents relied on by the Detaining Authority have no rational connection with the maintenance of public order.