TILATAMA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Tilatama Parida, mother of Bhika alias Sarat Kumar Parida (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') has questioned legality of order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack on 14-9-1996 in purported exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (in short, 'the Act'). Pursuant to the said mittimus, the detenu is interned in Circle Jail, Choudwar.

(2.) Grounds on which the detention has been directed, as indicated in the grounds of detention are that the detenu was creating havoc in different places of Cuttack city by indulging in anti-social activities whereby the public peace and order were adversely affected. His appearance in the localities make the people panic-stricken. People were apprehensive about their safety and security due to such anti-social activities. Though he was arrested and forwarded to custody in several cases, yet there was no diminution of anti-social activities, and even after coming out on bail, offences were committed more vigorously. Large number of criminal cases are pending against the detenu. Immediately prior to the order of detention on 4-9-1996 at about 4 p.m. detenu and his associate being armed with deadly weapons abused one Kailash Sharma of Choudhury bazar in loud obscene language and attacked him in presence of general public. The detenu tried to assault on the head of said Sharma lethally. As he ran away, a Bhujali was thrown by detenu with great force to take away his life. He threatened and terrorised the people with dire consequences if anybody dared to depose before the police or in Court. The acts of terrorism were so severe that innocent members of the public and the local shop-keepers out of fear ran helter-skelter and closed down shutters of their shop rooms. When one Krushna Chandra Behera, Secretary of the Bazar Committee wanted to ascertain the reason for such attack, the detenu attacked him and tried to kill him. With a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention was felt necessary. It was likely that in case the detenu is released on bail he shall continue his criminal and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and tranquillity.

(3.) Several grounds have been urged in support of the application by Mr. R. N. Mohanty. Firstly, it is submitted that there is no material to show that the detenu was likely to commit any criminal offences after being released on bail. The conclusions in this regard were presumptuous, as there was no foundation for such belief. Secondly, it is urged that the representation made to the Central Government has not received any response and there has been delay in disposal of the representation thereby violating the constitutional protection provided. It is also submitted that the incidents described at the most are law and order situations and cannot be called to be public order situation.Mr. R. K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that the effect of the acts already committed would determine the question whether the situation is law and order or public order. The case at hand clearly shows that the effect was disastrous, and public tranquillity was affected. So far as delay in disposal of the representation to the Central Government is concerned, it is submitted that the representation was sent expeditiously by the State Government to the Central Government.The learned Sr. Standing Counsel (Central) submitted that though he was granted time to file counter-affidavit, he has not been able to do so on account of lack of response from concerned authorities. It is submitted that he has already written three letters, and in spite of that no records were sent to him for production or filing counter-affidavit.