SACHITANANDA SWAIN PINTU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated 3/10/2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Balasore under Sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short the Act) the petitioner was detained in the District Jail, Balasore. The grounds for such detention were communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 7/10/2001 of the District Magistrate, Balasore. The State Government thereafter approved the order of detention by its order dated 11/10/2001. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board under the Act by the State Government and after submission of the report of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government by its order dated 15/11/2001. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 9/11/2001 against the order of detention before the Advisory Board, but the said representation was rejected by the State Government by its communication dated 29/11/2001 of the Government of Orissa, Home (Special Section) Department. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order of detention and to issue a writ of habeas corpus against the opp. parties to forthwith release the petitioner from the custody.

(2.) Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the immediate cause for detention of the petitioner was the incident which took place on 14/9/2001. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the said incident as narrated in ground No. 13 of the grounds of detention would show that the alleged act of the petitioner was only directed against individuals and did not affect the public order. He cited the judgment of this Court in Sankarsan Pradhan v. State of Orissa and another, in support of his submission that acts of a person directed against individuals will not amount to disturbance of public order and for such acts the ordinary law of the land has to be applied and detention orders cannot be passed.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that it is not just the incident of 14/9/2001 on account of which the petitioner has been detained in custody but various other incidents narrated in grounds Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the grounds of detention. According to Mr. Das, a bare reading of the said grounds would indicate that the acts of the petitioner have affected the general public and have disturbed the even tempo of public life. According to Mr. Das, therefore, this is a fit case in which the order of detention could be passed by the District Magistrate.