SANKAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges the order of detention dated 25.12.2008 under Annexure -1 to the writ petition passed Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (in short, "the Act") by the District Magistrate, Ganjam.

(2.) IN pursuance of the order under Annexure -1, the Petitioner was detained and was served with the grounds of detention dated 26.12.2008 under Annexure -2. In the ground of detention, the detaining authority has relied upon seven criminal cases registered against the Petitioner. In ground No. 1 reference has been made to four Station Diary Entries made in Aska Police Station and it was also stated therein that in absence of any cogent clue it was impossible to draw up an FIR against the Petitioner. Similarly, in ground No. 2 reference has been made to Station Diary Entry No. 188 dated 12.7.2008 of Gangpur Police Station. Similarly, in ground No. 3 two Station Diary Entries of Aska P.S. have been pressed into service. However, in ground No. 4 reference has been made to Aska P.S. Case No. 203 dated 26.7.2007 registered for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 307/34, IPC read with Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 & 4 E.S. Act. In ground No. 5 reference has been made to Aska P.S. Case No. 209 dated 30.7.2007 registered Under Sections 4 & 5, E.S. Act and under Section 47(d)(f) of Bihar & Orissa Excise Act. In ground No. 6 reference has been made to Aska P.S. Case No. 176 dated 10.7.2008 registered for the offence Under Section 302/34, IPC and Under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and this case was registered against accused Saroj Padhy, MLA, Aska, Basanta Mohanty, Budha @ Ganesh Bisoi, Kutuli Nayak, Bikram Mallick and Lambu Tarini. It was also stated therein that two witnesses proved the occurrence as well as the involvement of the Petitioner as a conspirator. In ground No. 7 it was stated that because of repeated involvement in criminal activities, a prosecution report vide Aska P.S. Non -FIR No. 79 dated 16.7.2008 Under Section 107, Code of Criminal Procedure has been submitted against the Petitioner. The order of detention appears to have been confirmed by the State Government by order dated 20.2009, which has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel appearing for the State. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the criminal cases which have been placed into service for passing the order of detention do not make out a case of public order inasmuch as, according to learned Counsel, the allegations made squarely come within the ambit of law and order situation and therefore, the order of detention is unsustainable. In support of such submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision, AIR 2008 SCW 6301 (K.K. Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.).