BHRAMARBAR CHOUDHURY Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The District Magistrate of Puri (hereinafter referred to as the 'detaining authority') opposite party No. 1 - made an order for detention of petitioner under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and petitioner was lodged in Puri Jail. He was served with the following grounds in support of his detention : -

(2.) THIS application was filed before the Court on 16.6.1975 with defects. After the defects were removed, the matter was placed for admission on 5.9.1975, when in view of the proclamation of emergency and suspension of the enforcement of Article 22 of the Constitution, the maintainability of the application was examined. Reliance was placed on three decisions of the Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner in support of the plea that the application was maintainable. (See Ram Manohar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 740 : (1966 Cri LJ 608); Durgadas v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1078 : (1966 Cri LJ 812) and Jaichand Lal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1967 SC 483 : (1967 Cri LJ 520). It was also contended that the order of detention was not under the amended provisions of the Act. After both parties were heard on the Question of maintainability, a rule nisi was issued and the detaining authority has filed the return supporting the order of detention.

(3.) THE ground of detention furnished to petitioner has already been extracted in extenso. It is clear that in the first paragraph the detaining authority clearly indicated the basis for his satisfaction that petitioner's detention was necessary under the Act. Three instances were given to lend support to the conclusion that detention was warranted. There is a clear distinction between a ground of detention and a fact or instance flowing out of particular conduct of a detenu. The facts stated under sub -paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the order of detention disclose instances which led to reaching of the satisfaction of the detaining authority. The conclusion reached by the detaining authority is contained in the main paragraph of the ground. In a case of this type where the ground is separately indicated and instances to support the ground are also supplied, the well accepted rule that when one ground fails, the order of detention has to be struck down may not strictly apply. The satisfaction of the detaining authority is not subject to judicial review. This is not a case where referring to the instances given in the ground of detention, one can come to the conclusion that the decision to detain petitioner is not a reasonable one. It is settled law that the detaining authority cannot be called upon to establish the facts alleged by him. If the facts stated under sub -paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are accepted, any prudent person would come to the conclusion that petitioner's activities are so prejudicial to public order that he should be detained.