RATNESWAR DAS Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11 -7 -1983 the petitioner was arrested at his home at Kurua in connection inter alia with Mangaldoi P. S. Case Nos. 403 and 404 of 1983 and lodged in Jail. After he was released on bail the Police re -arrested him on 16 -9 -83 in front of the Jail gate. This was done pursuant to an order passed on 14 -9 -83 by the second respondent District Magistrate. Mangaldoi: under Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 for short the Act. The grounds of detention were served on him on 18 -9 -83. Thereafter the petitioner came to this Court and obtained Rule nisi on 5 -10 -83. The detaining authority (Respondent No. 2) filed a return on 8 -11 -83 but on 7 -11 -83 the first respondent (State of Assam) also, through its Under Secretary in the Political 'A' Department filed an affidavit in opposition. After the third respondent (Union of India) filed its affidavit in opposition on 21 -12 -83, a counter affidavit, in reply to all three returns, was filed on behalf of the detenu on 30 -1 -1984.

(2.) THE detention order shows that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It is bottomed on four grounds of which we extract below the last and the fourth ground which is the focal point of challenge in this petition. "On 11 -7 -83 the Police recovered several arms and explosives from the residence of Shri Ratneswar Das and also from Upper Kurua Club house to which Shri Ratneswar Das led the police party. This activity of collecting arms and explosives by Shri Ratneswar Das is highly prejudicial to public order." Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions but we propose to deal first with the challenge to the above ground which is based on the violation of constitutional mandate of Art. 22(5).

(3.) AT para 9 of the petition as grievance is made that the grounds were vague because the basic facts and material particulars "including the documents and statements" were not furnished to the detenu. At para 15 it is averred that no explosive was recovered from his house and that he was not in any way connected, directly or indirectly, with the Upper Kurua Club. At para 28 it is submitted that "the documents and statements in -built in the grounds not having been furnished to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention or at any time thereafter", the petitioner was deprived of the constitutional rights and safeguards guaranteed under Art. 22(5). It is necessary, therefore, to refer to the return of the second respondent, the detaining authority, to see how these facts and submissions are traversed. As to the para 9 statement the short reply is that the grounds were "based on factual materials" and the order was issued only "after due application of mind" Similarly, para 15 statement is similarly shortly answered stating that ground No. 4 was "based on factual material". At para 18 of the return "contentions made in paragraphs 25 to 30 are denied and are stated to be "untenable". Affidavits filed on behalf of the first and third respondent could not obviously, and did not, in fact, add anything to what the detaining authority had to, and did say on this aspect. But in the affidavit -in -reply filed on behalf of the petitioner a specific averment was made that the "seizure lists" of alleged recovery of arms etc. from his residence and from the glub in question mentioned in ground No. 4 had not been furnished to him. Indeed, no document at all in connection with the connected criminal cases so it is averred supplied to him. On 4 -2 -84 an affidavit sworn by the Investigating Officer of Mangaldoi, P. S. Case Nos.403/83/, 404/83,199/83 and 84/83 was filed to establish the position that at the time of seizure the "seizure lists" were supplied to the detenu which he had received on 11 -7 -83 and that the police did not forcibly take his signatures, when he was in police custody, on any blank paper, as averred in the affidavit -in -reply.