SUREN DUTTA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A single point is lethal enough to declare the order of detention as invalid. The purposes of detention in this case were two fold: to prevent the detenu from acting in a prejudicial manner affecting (i) public order and (ii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. For the these two purposes the detaining authority passed the order of detention under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980, hereafter "the Act".

(2.) IN this writ application, the Petitioner challenges the validity of his detention amongst other grounds that there was not even a scintilla of material to show that the detenu did anything whatsoever which might prejudicially affect the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. There was not a single instance in the grounds of detention from which it could be deduced even remotely that the order of detention was necessary for preventing the Petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The supplies and services declared as essential to the community have been published in the Assam Gazette dated March 3, 1982 and there is nothing in the ground to show that the Petitioner did anything which was prejudicial to the maintenance of these supplies and services. Therefore, one of the main grounds of the purpose of detention fails. It also shows non -application of the mind of the detaining authority. When there is no material for one of the purposes in whatsoever form in the grounds of detention the order of detention cannot be maintained.

(3.) MR . S. Ali, learned Government Advocate, Assam has feebly urged that ground No. 2 does contain some basic facts to arrive at a subjective satisfaction about this purpose of detention also as the Petitioner had urged the members present in the meeting held on 11.7.83 to observe 10 hours blackout on 14.8.83 and by giving a call for Janata Curfew, on 15.8.83. Mr. Ali, therefore, submits that the detaining authority was in all probability satisfied that, the detenu was a potent danger to cause disruption of supplies and services essential to the life and community. But we do not find if there was any effect of the address by the Petitioner and another. There is no assertion made by the Respondents that on 15.8.83 there was a "Janata Curfew", nor does the term signify any link or connection with the purpose of detention. There is also no material to show from any source whatsoever that there was anything like "black -out" on 14.8.83. In any case, the call for "black -out" must have been not to lit the earthen lamps or electrical lamps. This could not have adversely affected the supply or conservation of energy. Therefore, there is no material to show that the Petitioner did anything which could have been prejudicial to the supplies and services essential to the life and community as notified in the aforesaid Government Notification. Further, a black -out by self does not bring a case within the purview of the aforesaid notification unless of course the same comes under any of the items enumerated in the Notification.