NIBARAN BORA, S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a batch of 9 petitions filed by the petitioners for writs of habeas corpus and for orders of release from their detention. The petitioners were directed to be detained under orders made by the District Magistrate, Gauhati, Kamrup, Gauhati, under Section 3 (1) of the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the said Ordinance'). The Governor of Assam, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution read with Order No. GSR/689(E) - published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated 12th December, 1979, promulgated the said Ordinance, which provides for detention of persons in certain cases and matters connected therewith. The validity of the said Ordinance is challenged by one Jatin Goswami in Civil Rule No. 203 of 1980 before this Court. The petitioners in these petitions also challenge, inter alia, the validity of the said Ordinance, but they have not pressed it at the time of argument. Counsel for the petitioners has confined himself only to the validity of the orders of detention. As these petitions involve common questions of law and facts, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Shri Khanindra Chandra Barua, petitioner in Criminal Misc. Case No. 36 of 1980, whose case was heard in the beginning along with the other petitions, has since been released by the Government of Assam. The petition has, therefore, been dismissed by this Court by an order passed on 2.6.1980.

(2.) PURSUANT to the orders of detention made by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati, passed on 18.4.1980, 6 of the petitioners were arrested and detained in the night between 18.4.1980 and 19 -4 -80. The grounds on which orders were made were communicated to them on 21 -4 -80. Two other petitioners (1) Nekibar Zaman in Criminal Misc. Case No. 56 of 1980 and (2) Shri Nripen Goswami in Criminal Misc. Case No. 57 of 1980, were similarly arrested and detained pursuant to the orders of detention made on 20 -4 -80. The grounds on which the orders were made were communicated to them on 29.4.1980.

(3.) THE grounds in the case of all the petitioners are common, save the names of the associates with whom the petitioner was said to have conspired and instigated people in general in Assam and Kamrup district in particular to commit the alleged act, viz., to observe Assam Bundh. By way of specimen, the order of detention Annexure A to each petition, and the grounds on which the order was made, Annexure B to each petition, are re -produced below: ORDER OF DETENTION : WHEREAS I am satisfied with respect of the person named as Shri Nibaran Borah, S/o Harayan Borah, C/o P. L. P. Office, Taibullah Road, Gauhati that with a view preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order and supplies and services essential to the community in the Kamrup district, it is necessary to make the following orders: Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 3 (1) of the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980, I, Shri K. Bora, District Magistrate, Kamrup do hereby direct that the said Shri Nibaran Borah be detained with immediate effect and until further orders at the Gauhati Jail. Sd/ - District Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati." GROUNDS: "1. That you are an active member (Chairman) of Purbanchaliya Lok Parishad, a constituent of the Assam Gana Sangram Parishad. You along with your associates Sarbashri Pabindra Deka, Biren Baishya, Bhrigu Phukan, Jatin Mali, Prafulla Mahanta and Moloy Barua and others conspired and instigated people in general of Assam and Kamrup district in particular to observe frequent 'bundhs' including 52 hours 'Assam Bundh' on 1 -1 -80 to 3.1.1980 and on 26 -3 -80, thereby paralysing normal life of the community which was instrumental in closing of shops, business establishments, Banks, Offices both Govt. and semi -Govt, educational institutions, Transport system etc. You are also contemplating to carry on such Bundh in future thereby paralysing normal life of the community. Your above mentioned activities are considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 2. That you along with your associates named above acted prejudicially by instigating people to put economic blockade through illegal picketing in the Oil India Pipeline Pumping Station at Narengi, Gauhati continuously with effect from 27th December, 1979 till date, thereby affecting normal flow of crude oil to the Refineries in Bongaigaon and Baruani which are necessary for maintenance of supplies, essential to the community. These activities of yours referred above constitute prejudicial activities as defined in Section 3(1) of the Assam Preventive Detention Ordinance, 1980. Sd/ - District Magistrate, Kamrup Gauhati."