PRAMOD DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are filed by two detenus challenging the detention orders passed against them by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam, under the National Security Act, 1980 ('the Act' for short). Since common questions of law and fact are involved both the writ petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE grounds of detention as well as the copies of the orders of detention were served on the detenus at the time when they were detained in custody. To appreciate the questions involved, it is necessary to reproduce the grounds of detention as under : '1. On 19 -6 -1994 around 10 P. M., Promod Das along with his associates Ashok Kumar Sahu, Narendra Sahu and 3/4 others assaulted one Bhagawan Sahu at Mentu Chhak, Old Berhampur by giving fist blows without any rhyme and reason. A number of people had gathered around the spot at a distance and witnessed the occurrence but none could venture to oppose the activities of these anti -socials. When Bhagwan Sahu cried and screamed with agony, few people from amongst the onlookers tried to Come close, Promod Das and Ashok Sahu abused them and threatened to cut into pieces if anybody tried to obstruct them saying as JEUN MAGHIA AMA PAKHAKU ASIBA, TAKU KHANDA KHANDA KARI PHOPADI DEBU, GANDIRE DUM THELE ASARE MAGHIA. 'They hurried two country -made bombs towards the police which bursted on the public road with big sound resulting into fear psychosis and sense of imminent danger and terror in the people who ran away helter skelter to save their lives. The shopkeepers in the area like Panwalas, tea -stall keepers and egg shopkeepers etc., closed their shops immediately and fled away from the place. The passers -by, two -wheelers, cyclists and pedestrians, too, ran away from the Chhak area. The people who were squatting on their verandah due to humidity, ran into their houses leaving their beddings and charpoys and closed the doors from inside. The Mentu Chhak area, generally remains busy till around mid -night, but due to the daring act of Promod Das and his associates, the area became deserted. The anti -socials kept shouting for some time to terrorise the people saying as MAGHIA -SAMNE ASARE, TAMA MAA MAIPANKU NEBU, KOU MAGMA AMARA KANA CHODIBA DEKHIBU AMAKU CHINHINA' and went away leaving behind injured Bhagawan Sahu who was lying on the road. One Debendra Kumar Padhi of the locality telephoned to B. Bazar P. S. from inside his press situated near Mentu Chhak, but could not get due to recent change in the telephone number. He, therefore, informed the matter to the S. P., I.I.C., B. Bazar P.S Sri B. K. Patnaik along with his staff, after getting intimation from the S. P. rushed to the spot and reached around 10.30 P.M. There was a total lull in the locality. Bhagawan Sahu was shifted to the city Hospital, Berhampur for treatment by Police. The I.I.C. requested the people not to be panic and narrated about happenings. After much persuation by police the people started collecting there. The police tried to restore the confidence in the minds of people, but the panic stricken people demanded that unless police picket is deployed there round the clock, their lives would be unsafe. Static Police guards were immediately deployed at Mentu Chhak and are still continuing round the clock. Despite this, the sense of fear and insecurity among the citizens of the locality continues who have been requesting not to remove the police from the area. In connection with this incident, B. Bazar P. S. Case No. 73 Dt. 19 -6 -1994 Under Section 147/148/ 323/149, IPC/3 N. S. Act was registered against the criminals Pramod Das, Ashok Kumar Sahu and others and is under Investigation.'

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri S. Das appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that the act complained of can be said to be related to the maintenance of law and order and not disturbance of public order. The solitary instance on the basis of which the detention order was passed, argued the counsel can very well be dealt with under the ordinary penal laws of the country and therefore, the stringent provision of the Act should not have been applied to curtail the personal liberty of the petitioners which is guaranteed to them by Article 21 of the Constitution. Per contra, the learned counsel Shri S.K. Das, Government Advocate, would urge that a solitary act can be considered for subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority to pass an order of detention and in the case in hand, the authority having given anxious consideration to the overall facts and circumstances, passed the impugned orders since it effected public order and therefore, the said order need no interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.