TARALA HAZRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ANDAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule arises on an application under Article 226 of the constitution of Indian for a Writ and/or order or orders and/or direction in the nature of Writ of Habeaus Corpus in the matter of an order passed by the District magistrate, Andamans, directing Ajoy Amar jyoti Hazra to be detained in exercise of the power conferred under Section 3 (2) of the- National Security Act, 1980. The application has been filed by Tarala Hasra, mother and Babul Hazra, brother of the detente. The facts of the case may briefly be. stated, as follows: -

(2.) THE detente is a popular Trade Union leader, of Andaman. He is President of saffai Karmachari Union of the Municipal board of Andaman. The Andaman Municipal Board which is controlled by the congress (I) Party has denied the employment of 300 Harijan workers who have become the members of the Saffai Karmachari Union. Industrial dispute has been raised in that regard and the same is pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Andaman. On behalf of the said Union a Writ application has been moved before this court Challenging the illegal act of changing duty hours of the staff of the Municipal Board. The said application was disposed of in September, 1981 directing the andaman Administration/central Government to refer the industrial dispute to the appropriate Tribunal. Ever since Shri hazra entered in the Trade Union field of andaman, he has become eyesore to the local Congress (I) leaders. The local Congress (I) leaders having failed to ameliorate the grievances and to solve the problems of the local people are very much against the bona fide Trade Union activities of the said Shri Hazra. On February 23,1982 when Shri Hazra was discussing with his colleagues in the Union Office as to how best to conduct the pending reference before the Tribunal he was arrested from the Union Office at Bamboo Flat, Andaman and was served with an order passed by the District Magistrate, Andaman under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. Shri Hazra on that date was taken to Cellular jail. Port Blair and was kept in solitary confinement in the vicinity of lunatics and in a most unhygienic atmosphere. Smt. Amita Hazra on February 24, 1982 approached the jail Authority to hand over the papers relating to the grounds of detention to her for drafting the representation contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. Smt. Hazra, however, was not allowed to be given the copy of the grounds of detention. Smt. Hazra was not allowed to have a proper interview with the detente at Cellular jail to know about the grounds of detention. As such, Smt. Hazra made a representation to the District Magistrate; andaman, stating that the refusal to hand over the grounds of detention amounts to violation of Section 8 (1) of the act. The said representation was duly received by the District Magistrate, Andaman, but no step was taken to hand over the grounds to Smt. Hazra for the purpose of making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the constitution of India. It is stated that shri Hazra is a peace loving citizen and a popular Trade Union leader. He has got no connection with, any activities which may be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The purported grounds served by the Authorities do not contain any reason or ground to justify detention of Shri Hazra under the National Security Act. The petitioners state that at the instance of local congress (I ). leaders Shri Hazra was arrested and detained. It has further been stated that Shri Hazra has been detained with a malafide motive and to lateral purpose without any material whatsoever. The petitioners state that the order of detention was passed without any application of mind and there is no bona fide satisfaction of the detaining authority as to the need of justification of Shri Hazira's detention. The petitioners state that the wife of shri Hazra was not given the ground of detention and as such opportunity to make effective representation against the order of detention as contemplated under Sec. 8 (1) of the Act has also been denied. It has also been stated that the purported order of detention has not been approved by the state Government as required under section 3 (4) of the Act. nor any communication of such approval was sent to the detenue so far. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of detention, the petitioners moved this Court and. got a Rule. The grounds taken in the petition are to the following effect the Order of detention was passed with a malafide motive and for a co-lateral purpose; the provision of Article 22 (5)of the Constitution has been violated inasmuch as the detenue has not been given opportunity to make effective representation against the detention; the ground of detention has not been made available for preparing representation; the detenue is never connected with and has. not been a party to any act prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of services and supply essential to the community or maintenance of public order; the authority has not applied its mind and the purported satisfaction of the Authority is based on extraneous consideration and is not bona fide or lawful; the impugned order not being approved by the appropriate state Government within the statutory period the same is no nest and the detention of the detenue is totally illegal.

(3.) AN affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.-1 Shri V. Bhat, the District magistrate, Andaman District. The allegations made in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition have been denied. It is stated that the activities under the garb of alleged trade union activities of the detenue are not either bona fide or lawful. It is stated that the allegations made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are not fully correct. The detenue Shri Hazra was taken in custody on the very day the order of detention was issued. It is not a fact that the detenue has been kept in confinement in the District jail. With regard to the statement made in paragraph 5 it has been stated that the detenue was informed of the grounds of detention by serving notice on him through the Superintendent, District Jail, by the district Magistrate on 25. 2. 82 Shri Hazra was permitted on 4. 3. 82 by the Administration to make over copy of the grounds of detention to his wife. With regard to the statements made in paragraph 6, it has been stated that the detenue's wife made a representation to the District Magistrate on 1. 3. 82. The wife of the detenue collected the copy of the grounds of detention from the Office of the Superintendent, District jail on 11. 3. 82. The statements made in paragraph 7 have been denied. It is stated that the activities of the detenue were very much prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services essential to the community. The grounds on which the detenue was detained under sec. 3 (2) of the National Security Act are valid and lawful and there are sufficient reasons for detention of Shri Hazra under the said Act. The statements made in paragraph 8 have also been completely denied it is stated that there was sufficient justification for the detention of Shri hazra as his activities were very much prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The detenue was afforded earliest opportunity of making the representation against the detention order of the appropriate government. The averments made in paragraph 10 have also been denied. It is stated that there, was no malafide motive or any collateral purpose for detaining Shri Hazra. The detaining authority had a right or authority muter the National Security Act to detain him by virtue of the order of the Administrator. The provision of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India has not been violated. It is absolutely incorrect that any fundamental right of the detenue guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India has been infringed or violated. The detaining authority applied his mind and having been satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for detention issued the order of detention. It is absolutely false that the order of detention is based on extraneous consideration. It is incorrect to say that the detaining authority was under any pressure from political leaders before the order of detention was issued. It is stated that the order of detention is perfectly legal and valid and cannot be challenged on any score.