SAJID ISSAC Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition relates to the detention of Riasuddin Siddique (Siddiq) under the National Security Act 65 of 1980. He was detained on 16/03/1982. The grounds of detention were served on him on 20/03/1982. He is the Secretary of a body corporate. The United Co-operative Housing Society Limited - incorporated under the State Act 7 of 1964. This Society in the grounds of detention is described to be a benami Society controlled by one Mohd. Ibrahim Khan who, it is averred, with the aid and assistance of the Assistant City Planner, G. M. Khan, Siddique and other associates, occupied extensive vacant lands in the city of Hyderabad, committed acts of violence, spread lawlessness, endangered lives of landowners, disturbed public order. In all the nefarious acts, Siddique is said to be a willing aide of Ibrahim Khan. These acts, now they were perpetrated, a representation was made to the Chief Minister and to the Police Commissioner on 8/03/1982, thereupon, necessary information was collected: Siddique and the connected persons were arrested. The detention of Siddique is attacked in this court as not only to have been made on insufficient evidence, but the incidents, per se, are attacked as stale: based on such grounds it is urged no citizen could be detained under Act 65 of 1980.

(2.) It is at first argued with reference to the contents of ground (in particular) reference is made to the prefatory note and para 4 that what is contained therein should be construed as ground and the detention be judged from that perspective. Whether a prefatory note should be construed a ground for detention was the subject of decision in Mohd. Yusuf v. State of J. & K., AIR 1979 SC 1925. In that case, two views were expressed. One of the Judges, among the three, observed, grounds cannot be trisected as "introduction to the detention", background to the detention and as "grounds for detention" and in that view, held, what is contained in preface is ground of detention. That view is not shared by the two Judges who wrote the principal opinion in that case. Therefore, following the view expressed by the two Judges, it is not possible to hold on a consideration of what is contained in the said two paras, they are grounds of detention for in the passages referred, no particular incident is referred to by the detaining authority. This objection raised on behalf of the detained person, therefore, fails.

(3.) Among the three grounds, next two incidents of Oct. 12 and Dec. 9, 1975, are adverted to as grounds of detention. In the incident relevant to Dec. 9, Siddique and Ibrahim Khan, together, in the presence of G. M. Khan, Assistant City Planner, obtained an agreement from Mir Mushtaq Ali Khan, a member of the erstwhile Banganpally Nawab family as respects 7,200 sq. meters of land covering S. Nos. 184 and 185 in Amberpet and paid him Rs. 60,000.00. As to the incident pertaining to Oct, 12, 1975, Ac. 6-17 guntas of land in S. Nos. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20 of Somajiguda including premises bearing Nos. 6-3-1902 and 1903 by deceitful and fraudulent means practiced by Siddique and Ibrahim Khan, Smt. Sunita Devi deprived of land under deed on Oct. 12, 1975, whereunder, she sold her land at a nominal price of Rs. 11.00 per sq. yard. The third incident refers to Gulam Dastagir, Tajuddin, Sadiq Mohiuddin Siddique who, with other members of Citizens Welfare Committee, made a representation to the Commissioner of Police and the Chief Minister on Mar. 8, 1982, therefore, for their acts, they were threatened; their lives were put in danger by Siddique, his master, Ibrahim Khan and others.