Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13
PETITIONER:
IN RE: SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17/12/1968
BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
BENCH:
GROVER, A.N.
SHAH, J.C.
RAMASWAMI, V.
CITATION:
1969 AIR 1004 1969 SCR (3) 138
1969 SCC (1) 273
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art 22(5) -Prevention Detention
Act 4 of 1950 s. 3(2)-Grounds of detention-Detention cannot
be upheld if any of the grounds is irrelevant-Maintenance of
public order when affected.
HEADNOTE:
The petitioners were detained under the Preventive Detention
Act, 1950. They filed a petition for Habeas Corpus under
Art. 32 of the Constitution. The Court considered their
cases individually in the light -of the grounds of detention
supplied to them.
HELD :(i) If some of the grounds which are given are
irrelevant the order of detention cannot be upheld because
the court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction
of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those
reasons. [139 H]
Dwarka Das Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1956]
S.C.R. 945 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal,
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 635, applied.
(ii) The grounds supplied to most of the petitioners were
not relevant to the ’maintenance of public order’. The
contravention of any law always affects order but before it
can be said to affect public order it must affect the public
or the community at large. A mere disturbance of law and
order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for
action under the Act but a disturbance which will affect
public order can alone justify detention under that head.
[141 B-C]
(iii) Citizens must not be detained under the Act for
petty matters and the grounds must be reasonably proximate
in time. [141 D]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 328 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 32 -of the Constitution of India for a
writ in the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. Garg, for the petitioners.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13
Debabrata Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterjee,
for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu-
tion by Sushanta Goswami and 46 others for a writ in the
nature of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention of the
petitioners under the provisions of the Preventive Detention
Act 1950, hereinafter called the "Act".
Petitioner No. 4 Krishna Mondal and Petitioner No. 21 Madhu
Kanjilal are stated to have been released. No orders need
he
139
made with regard to them. As regards petitioners Nos. 2, 8,
9, 15, 22, 24, 32, 41 and 47 their matters will be taken up
for consideration later as the State has been directed to
file further affidavits. We now proceed to dispose of the
cases of the other petitioners.
Petitioner No. 1 (Sushanta Goswami) This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
dated July 30, 1968. His detention was directed under s.
3(2) of the Act on the ground that it was necessary with a
view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. The grounds were
supplied to him and he made a representation to the Advisory
Board which, after hearing the petitioner and considering
his representation, expressed its opinion that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. Consequently the
detention order dated July 30, 1968 was confirmed on
September 20, 1968 by the Government of West Bengal. The
grounds for detention have been perused by us. According to
the first ground the petitioner had been committing offences
of forming unlawful assembly, assaulting the police and
peaceful inhabitants, snatching away cash and valuables,
teasing school girls and criminal intimidation. The
instances which were given are seven out of which it is
necessary to mention only the following which are typical
" (ii) That on 14-11-66 at 21.15 hrs., you
with your associates formed an unlawful
assembly on Dum Dum Road in front of the Fire
Brigade Office and assaulted Shri Pranab Bose
of P-18 Matijheel Avenue and you snatched away
a fountain pen worth Rs. 10 from his pocket.
(vi) That on 18-3-68 at 19.30 hrs., you with
your associates closely followed Sm. Sipra
Kundu (18) from Satgachi crossing on Jessore
Road and uttered indecent language towards
her, as a result of which she got terrified
and ran away to save her modesty."
Ground No. 11 is to the effect that as a result of the
petitioner’s nefarious activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order he has become a nuisance to the
society and there have been disturbances and confusion in
the lives of peaceful citizens of Dum Dum police station and
the inhabitants thereof are in constant dread of disturbance
of public order.
We do not consider that the above grounds are relevant to
public order and if some of the grounds which are given are
irrelevant the order of detention cannot be upheld because
the court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction
of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those
reasons; vide Dwarka
140
Das Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir(1), and the
recent decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State
of West Bengal (2) . There the order of detention is hereby
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13
set aside.
Petitioner No. 3 Panchu (Gopal Mondal).-This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
dated March 23, 1968 made in exercise of the power conferred
by s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that the detention was
necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential
to the community. He was supplied with the grounds and he
made a representation. It was sent to the Advisory Board
which,, after hearing him and considering all the material
placed before it, expressed,’ its opinion that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. The Government of West
Bengal confirmed the detention order on July 17, 1968.
We have perused the grounds of detention and we find that
most of them relate to matters for which penal or other
action could be taken under the relevant statutes. For
instance ground No. 1(ii) is as follows :
"That on 12-1-68 at 11.30 hrs. you were found
operating your husking machine at puraton
Bongaon and on demand by S.I.S. Chatterjee of
S.E.B. (7) you could not produce the requisite
license or permit.
That though you were prosecuted for operating
your husking machine on 12-1-68, you carried
on further operation with it as it was left on
your bond of production, violating again the
provisions of West Bengal Husking Machine
(Control of Operation) Amendment Order 1967."
The fact that the petitioner could not produce the requisite
licence or permit can hardly be regarded as relevant for
detention on the ground of activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies essential to the community.
For the aforesaid reasons this petitioner is also entitled
to be released.
Petitioner No. 5 (Debendra Nath Das)-This petitioner was
detained by an order dated May 9, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate 24 Parganas under S. 3(2) of the Act. His
detention was considered necessary for preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order His representation was sent to the Advisory
Board which, after hearing him personally and, considering
all the materials, expressed an opinion that there was
sufficient cause for the petitioner’s detention. His
detention was confirmed by the Government of West
(1) [1956] S.C.R.945.
(2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.
141
Bengal by an order dated July 17, 1968. The grounds of
detention have been considered by us and we are of the
opinion that they relate mainly to the question of law and
order and are not relevant to public order. Moreover there
are allegations of offences under the Indian Penal Code for
which prosecution could be launched. As has been observed
in Pushkar Mukherjee & I Ors. v. State of West Bengal(1) the
contravention of any law always affects order but before it
can be said to affect public order it must affect the
community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law
and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient
for action under the Act but a disturbance which will affect
public order can alone justify detention under that head.
Ground No. 1 (viii) which is typical may be specifically
mentioned:
"That on 26-2-68 at about 09.00 hrs. you and
your associates stabbed Constable Bhupendra
Nath Chakraborty of Gouripur T.O.P. under Dum
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13
Dum P.S. near Birati Railway Level Crossing
gate and stole away his wrist watch."
We are satisfied that the petitioner could not have been
detained on the grounds which are before us. He is,
therefore, entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb).-He was detained by an order
dated May 27, 1968 of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
under s. 3(2) on the ground that his detention was necessary
for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. He was supplied the
grounds on which he made a representation to the Advisory
Board which heard him personally and after considering all
the material an opinion was expressed that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. The Government of West
Bengal confirmed the detention order on August 21, 1968.
We have perused the grounds for the petitioners’ detention.
They relate mostly to the question of law and order and are
not relevant to public order. Consequently the petitioner
is entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 6 (Anil Das). This petitioner was detained
by an order of the District Magistrate, Howrah dated May 18,
1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act, the detention being
considered necessary in order to prevent him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The representation made by the petitioner was forwarded to
the Advisory Board which considered all the material before
it and was of the opinion
(1) [1969]2 S.C.R. 635.
142
that sufficient cause for his detention existed. On July
29, 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention.
Most of the grounds are not at all relevant to maintenance
of public order. Ground No. 1 (a) is that on August 12,
1966 at about 10.00 hrs. "you being drunk demanded Rs. 2
from Shri Santi Das......... near the betel shop of Shalta
Lal...... and threatened him with murder when he refused to
pay you the said money"
We are satisfied that the petitioner’s detention cannot be
upheld and it is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 10 (Dilip Kr. Chakraborty @ Konkan) This
petitioner was detained by -an order dated June 13, 1968
made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under S. 3(2) of
the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary in
order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. One of the grounds,
namely, 1 (ii) is .
"That on 13-3-67 you with your associate Debu
Biswas assaulted one Paresh Nath Koley of
Ghosepara with fists and blows".
Such a ground cannot possibly relate or be relevant to
public order. In view of our previous decisions mentioned
before we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
to be released. It may be mentioned that this petitioner
had also filed a petition under Art. 226 in the Calcutta
High Court but his counsel has undertaken to withdraw that
petition.
Petitioner No. 12 (Ashoka Kumar Mukherjee). This petitioner
was detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas, dated May 25, 1968 made under S. 3(2) of the Act;
the reason for his detention being the prevention of
activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a
representation which was considered by the Advisory Board
which, after giving a personal hearing, expressed an opinion
that his detention was justified. The Government confirmed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13
the’original order of detention on August 8, 1968. We have
examined the grounds and they suffer from the same infirmity
as in the case of petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb). Ground
No. 1 (i) may be reproduced :
"That on 3-6-67, you assaulted one
Nabalchandra Saha a hawker, with knife."
This petitioner is also entitled to be released. Petitioner
No. 13 (Ram Kamal Dhar @ Leda)
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968
passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under S. 3
(2) of the Act on the ground that his detention was
necessary with a view
143
to preventing him from acting. in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention.
disclose the same infirmities which are to be found in the
case of petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb) and Petitioner No. 10
(Dilip Chakraborty @ (Konkan). For instance one of the
grounds, No. 3 is in these terms :
"On 1-5-68 at about 12.35 hrs. you along with
your two associates being armed with daggers,
snatched away a wrist watch worth Rs. 130 from
the person of the Kulak Chandra Sarkar S/o
Late Sahadeb Sarkar of Madhab Nibas Colony, P.
S. Titagarh, Dist. 24 Parganas near Dum Dum
South home signal at the point of dagger
causing bleeding injury.
You were arrested with property red handed."
Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 14 (Gopal Show). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated July 11; 1968 made by the
District Magistrate Howrah on the ground that his detention
was necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The
grounds were supplied to him, on which he made a
representation which was considered by the Advisory Board by
which he was also personally heard. On the report of the
Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for his
detention the original order was confirmed by the Government
of West Bengal on October 7, 1968. This case falls very
much in the same group as that of the petitioners Nos. 7, 10
and 12 above mentioned.
According to one of the grounds the petitioner had, on Octo-
ber 12, 1967 along with his associates committed a daring
burglary in Howrah Tobacco Store by breaking open 6/7
padlocks and removed Cigarette cases worth Rs. 10,000. He
is thus entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 16 (Makhan Lal Saha). This petitioner was.,
detained by an order dated March 23, 1968 made by the
District Magistrate 24, Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the Act
on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view
to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order. The grounds were supplied
to him on which he made a representation which was sent to
the Advisory Board. After hearing him personally and
considering all the materials, the Advisory Board reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the original order of
detention on July 29, 1968. An examination of the " grounds
shows that they relate mostly and are relevant to the head "
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community".
144
For instance ground No. 1 (i) is that on March 28, 1968 the
petitioner together with his associate committed theft of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13
over-head traction wires including contact wire disrupting
the train services in Bongaon Section for more than 7 hours.
The grounds may have been relevant to the other head but
none of them appears to be relevant to "maintenance of
public order". It is somewhat surprising and altogether
incomprehensible how any District Magistrate or even the
Government could have missed seeing that the ,detention of
this petitioner might have been justified under the head
"maintenance of supplies and services essential to the com-
munity" but not the "maintenance of public order".
Therefore the detention order cannot be sustained and must
be set aside.
Petitioner No. 17 (Sk. Yunus Ali). This petitioner was
detained by an order made by the District Magistrate,
Howrah, on March 7, 1968 under s. 3(2) of the Act on the
ground that his detention was necessary with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. He was supplied the grounds
and he made a representation which was considered by the
Advisory Board. The Board heard him personally and made a
report that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on
July 3, 1968. The grounds suffer from the same infirmity as
in the cases of petitioners Nos. 7 and 10. For instance
ground No. 1 (b) is :
"That on 12-3-67 at about 06-00 hrs., you and
your associates showed ugly gesture and
posture to some women vendors of vegetables in
platform no. 6 of Uluberia Rly. Station and
started whistling in mouth on seeing those
women. RPF head Rakshak K. C. Chandra of
Santragachi Crime Branch objected to such
indecent behaviour towards women by you all
when Shri Chandra was physically assaulted
with slaps by you and was threatened with dire
consequences by you and your associates."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is
hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 18 (Gaddu Ghosh). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Malda,
dated June 3, 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act with a
view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. The grounds were
supplied to him and he made a representation which was
considered by the Advisory Board. The Board after hearing
him personally and considering all the materials before it,
expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his
detention. Thereupon the Government of West Bengal
,confirmed the order of his detention. Practically all the
grounds
145
do not appear to be relevant to public order. Ground No. 2
(a) is typical and may be reproduced :
"That on the midnight of 21-7-67 you grazed
your 17 heads of cattle on maize plants in the
land of Amal Roy of Kbasbari P. S. English
Bazar. You threatened Amal Roy with further
mischief for impounding your cattle."
His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 19 (Ratanlal Kairi). This petitioner was de-
tained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas,
dated April 19, 1968; his detention being considered
necessary in order to preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His
representation was referred to the Advisory Board which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13
considered it along with the other material and expressed an
opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The Government made an order on July 10, 1968 confirming the
order of detention. The grounds have been perused by us and
they appear to be relevant. The activities which are
mentioned therein show that they are of such a nature that
they relate to public order.
We would therefore decline the prayer for setting aside the
order of detention.
Petitioner No. 20 (Farid Ali Naskar). This petitioner was
detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24,
Parganas, dated July 30, 1968 Made under s. 3 (2) of the Act
on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order
to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was sent to
the Advisory Board which considered it along with the other
materials but made a report against him. The Government
thereupon confirmed the order of detention on September 19,
1968. We have seen the grounds of detention and they appear
to relate mostly to removal of rice bags in a clandestine
manner. These activities might have some relevance to the
head "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the
community but by no stretch of reasoning can they be
regarded as relevant to public order.
The detention of the petitioner therefore is set aside.
Petitioner No. 23 (Sk. Makbul). The petitioner was
detained by the order dated March 8, 1968 made by the
District Magistrate, Howrah, under s. 3 (2) of the Act on
the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to
preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds of
his detention, he made a representation to the Advisory
Board which, after considering the same and giving
146
him a personal hearing, reported that there was sufficient
cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government of West
Bengal confirmed the detention order. The grounds disclose
the same infirmity as in other cases e.g. Petitioner Nos. 7
and 10. Ground No. 1 (a) is typical and may be reproduced :
"That on 10-2-67 at about 21.50 hrs. you and
your associates threatened R.P.F. Head Rakshak
Prakash Chandra Mitra of CID Kharagpur at
Andul Railway Station with stabbing when Shri
Mitra objected to your passing of indecent
remarks at a lady passenger."
Consequently the detention order is set aside.
Petitioner No. 25 (Uday Chand Namadas). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate Jalpaiguri,
dated the 11 th July 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on
the ground that his detention was necessary in order to
prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds he
made a representation which was considered by the Advisory
Board. The Board gave a personal hearing and after
considering all the materials reported that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the
Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order.
Ground No. 1 is altogether vague and may be reproduced :-
"That you have been for a long time engaged in
anti-social, illegal and high-handed criminal
activities and in the course of such
activities you have on different occasions
held out threats to different persons and that
you have associated yourself with anti-social
elements. Whenever the peace-loving citizens
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13
questioned your bona fide and protested
against your activities and whenever they
offered themselves as witnesses to your
activities you threatened to burn down their
houses."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be sustained because
of the existence, of the above ground which is so vague that
the petitioner could not possibly have made any
representation with regard to it. In view of our previous
decisions referred to his detention is set aside.
Petitioner No. 26. (Abdul Bari Karikar). This petitioner
was detained by the order made by the District Magistrate,
Murshidabad, on July 6, 1968 under S. 3 (2) of the Act on
the ground that the detention was necessary in order to
prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. On receiving the
grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which
was considered by it. The Board, after giving a personal
hearing and considering all the materials expressed an
opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention.
147
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of
detention on September 12, 1968. We have read the grounds
and we consider that some of them are so irrelevant that it
is incomprehensible how any order of detention could have
been made on those grounds. For instance ground No. 1 is
"On 26-8-65 you were committed to trial before
the court under section 406 of the Indian
Penal Code on a charge of deceitfully
misappropriating the cycle belonging to Bishu
Khan of village Chonya Pathan Para."
Ground No. 4 is equally irrelevant. It has
been stated that
"On 19-5-67 at about 7.30 a.m. you threatened
Karim Sheikh of village Chonya Pathan Para
with assault as he had instituted a case
against you."
If such grounds can be considered to be relevant to public
order it would be open to the authorities to detain citizens
without a trial for such petty matters as have been
mentioned in these grounds. Moreover the first ground is
also not reasonably proximate in time. It relates to some
incident which happened in the year 1965 whereas the
detention order was made on July 6, 1968. The detention of
the petitioner cannot possibly be upheld and is hereby set
aside.
Petitioner No. 27 (Nagendra Nath Saha). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated April 19, 1968 made by the
District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the Act;
the grounds of detention being the prevention of activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On
receiving the grounds he made a representation to the
Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient
cause for his detention. On July 10, 1968 the Government of
West Bengal confirmed the detention order. Two of the
grounds may be reproduced :-
"2 (c) That your complicity transpired during
investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 181 dt.
26-3-65 u/s 379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably
suspended in the case.
(d) That your complicity transpired during
investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 180 dt.
26-3-65 u/s 379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably
suspected in the case."
These cannot possibly have any relevance to "maintenance of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13
public order", the proper implications of which expression
have been fully discussed in the decisions of this Court
including the recent decision in Pushkar Mookherjee & Ors.
v. The State of
148
West Bengal(1). The petitioner’s detention cannot therefore
be upheld and it is hereby set aside :
Petitioner No. 28 (Habibullah Khan). This petitioner was
:detained by an order dated February 17, 1968 made by the
District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under S. 3(2) of the Act
in order to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On
receiving the grounds he made a representation to the
Advisory Board which expressed an opinion in favour of his
detention. The Government of West Bengal confirmed the
detention on April 17, 1968.
We have perused the grounds of detention which do not relate
to public order; for instance one of the grounds If iv) is
to the following effect :
"that on 27-12-67 at about 03.30 hrs’ you and
your associates committed theft of signalling
and telecommunication materials from location
box No. L-60 worth about Rs. 3,000."
His detention is consequently set aside.
Petitioner No. 29. (Naba Kumar Ghosh). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas, dated July 13, 1968 made under S. 3(2) of the Act
on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner
in order to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Ms
representation was considered by the Advisory Board which
made a representation that there was sufficient cause for
his detention. On September 19, 1968 the detention order
,was confirmed by the Government. Some of the grounds are
not at all relevant to maintenance of public order; for
instance ground No. 1 (ii) is
"That on 1-3-68 at about 02.00 hrs., you and
your associate Ram Nehore Kouri were seen to
conceal your presence by the side of a wagon
standing at Chitpur yard with a view to commit
theft from standing wagons. Being chased, you
and your associate,,,, were arrested by the
(1) on duty RPF staff and prosecuted."
The detention of the petitioner cannot be upheld and is set
aside.
Petitioner No. 30 (Abdul Main Mirza). This petitioner was
detained by the order of the District Magistrate, Howrah,
dated March 7, 1968 on the ground that his detention was
necessary in order to prevent him from -acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His
representation was considered by the Advisory Board which
reported that there was sufficient ,cause for his detention.
On June 12, 1968 the Government confirmed the detention
order. Most of the grounds are not relevant
(1) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.
149
to the maintenance of public order. For instance ground No.
1 (a), is :
"That on 24-2-67 at about 21.26 hrs. you and
your associates abused C.I.B. Head Rakshak
3646 Hara Kumar Mukherjee of Shalimar and also
threatened him with dire consequences at Andul
Rly. Station when Shri Mukherjee objected to
the passing of indecent remarks at a lady
passenger of 358 Dn. (Midnapur-Howrah
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13
Passenger) train."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is
hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 31 (Nripen Chakraborty). This petitioner was
detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas on April 4, 1968 on the ground that his detention
was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in a
manner prejudicial to public order. His representation was
sent to the Advisory Board which on considering the same
with other material reported that there was sufficient cause
for the detention. The detention order was consequently
confirmed by the Government on June 12, 1968. Most of the
grounds do not appear to be relevant to maintenance, of
public, order. Ground No. (ii) may be reproduced :-
"That on 7-10-66 you pulled the alarm chain of
the train at Bongaon Ranaghat Section while
you were bringing rice for sale from Ranaghat
to Bongaon, without having booked them and
without having any ticket."
His detention cannot therefore be upheld and it is hereby
set aside.
Petitioner No. 33 (Nanda Kishore Rabi Das). This petitioner
was detained by an order dated April 25, 1968 made by the
District Magistrate 24, Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act on
the ground that his detention was necessary for preventing
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order. He made a representation to the Advisory
Board which after considering all the materials reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The
detention order was consequently confirmed by the Government
of West Bengal on July 2, 1968. The grounds for detention
in the case of this petitioner appear to be relevant to
maintenance of public order. He has apparently been acting
with a large number of associates and committing acts which
could have led to disturbance of public order. His
detention is therefore upheld.
Petitioner No. 34 (Samiron Sarkar). This petitioner was de-
tained by an order dated August 2, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate 24, Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act on the
ground that his detention was necessary to prevent him from
acting in any
150
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His
representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which
reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on
October 9, 1968. His case is similar to that of many others
inasmuch as most of the grounds are not relevant to the
maintenance of public order. By way of example ground No. 1
(ii) is reproduced
"That on 30-9-67 at about 21.00 hrs. you with
your associates Amal Karali, Bapu, Tripti and
others forced Shri Dulal Chandra Kundu, Abdul
Jabbar and Gobinda Das Roy Choudhury of
Barisha to go to the shop of Nilan Maity
inside Sakher Bazar and you forcibly took away
Rs. 65 from the pocket of Gobinda Das Roy
Choudhury, one wrist watch, a gold ring and
cash Rs. 18 from Abdul Jabbar and Rs. 70 and
20 packets of cigarettes from Dulal Chandra
Kundu."
His detention cannot be upheld and is set
aside.
Petitioner No. 35 (Ashwini Kumar Karmakar). This petitioner
was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968 of the District
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13
Magistrate 24 Parganas made under s. 3(2) of the Act, the
detention being considered necessary with a view to prevent
the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was sent to
the Advisory Board which, after considering all the
materials, reported that there was sufficient cause for his
detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of
detention on September 19, 1968. The activities which have
been alleged in the grounds are again of at type, which
cannot be relevant to public order. For instance ground No.
1 (c) which is in these terms :
"That on 6-10-67 at about 06.30 hrs. you and
your associates were seen to remove sugar bags
from a sealed wagon of a goods train and to
despatch the same by hand pulling car while
the train stopped at Bagmari Rly. Bridge for
red signal."
His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside.
Petitioner No. 36 (Sri Panchanan Das). The District Magis-
trate, 24 Parganas, made an order dated June 13, 1968
directing under s. 3(2) of the Act petitioner’s detention
with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His
representation was sent to the Advisory Board which, after
considering all the materials, reported that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the Gov-
ernment confirmed the detention order on August 29, 1968.
Most of the grounds are not at all relevant to the
maintenance of public ,order; see for instance ground No. 1
(c) which is in these terms :
151
"That on 18-2-68 at about 11.30 a.m. you and
your associates were found to remove rice from
a running Railway wagon by breaking seal of
the wagon door at Bagmari Rly. pool and
overhead Chitpur Bridge."
His detention cannot be upheld.
Petitioner No. 37 (Indrajit Debnath). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
dated May 23, 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the
ground that his detention was necessary with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was
considered by the Advisory Board along with the other
materials. The Board reported that there was sufficient
cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed
the order of detention on August 1, 1968. Most of the
grounds contain allegations of theft of overhead traction
wire. They cannot possibly be relevant to maintenance of
public order. The detention order cannot be upheld and is
hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 38. (Surjit Singh). This petitioner was
detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas under s. 3 (2) of the Act on April 4, 1968; the
detention being considerd necessary to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. His representation was considered by the
Advisory Board along with the other materials and the Board
reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the detention order on
June 29, 1968. Some of the grounds cannot possibly relate
to maintenance of public order. Ground No. 1 (viii) is in
these terms :
"That on 16-2-68 you fled away from the R. G.
Kar Hospital while you were undergoing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13
treatment under police guard."
His detention consequently cannot be upheld and is hereby
set aside.
Petitioner No. 39 (Badal Pal). This petitioner was detained
by an order, dated July 30, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate 24 Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act, his
detention being considered necessary to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. His representation was considered by the
Advisory Board with other materials which reported that
there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the
Government confirmed the order of detention. Some of the
grounds have absolutely no relevance to the maintenance of
public order. See for instance grounds Nos. 1 (d), (e) and
(f).
His detention cannot, therefore, be upheld and is set aside.
152
Petitioner No. 40 (Sona Karmakar) . This petitioner was de-
tained by an order of the District Magistrate dated July 30,
1968 made under S. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that his
detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in
any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board with
the other materials but the Board reported that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. On September 18, 1968
the Government confirmed the order of detention. Some of
the grounds cannot possibly be regarded as relevant to
maintenance of public order. See grounds Nos. 1 (b) and
(c).
His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 42 (Jaganath Goila). This petitioner was de-
tained by an order of the District Magistrate,, 24 Parganas
made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that it was
necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. His representation was considered by the Advisory
Board together with the other materials. The Board reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On
October 7, 1968 the detention order was confirmed. A
perusal of the grounds shows that most of the grounds are
not relevant to maintenance of public order and in this
connection reference may be made to ground Nos. 1 (ii) and
(iii).
The detention of this petitioner cannot, therefore, be
upheld and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 43 (Shyamal Pal). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas
made unders. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that it was
necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. On receiving the grounds of detention the petitioner
made a representation which was considered by the Advisory
Board together with the other materials. The Board reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On May
17, 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention.
We have examined the grounds of detention. Most of them do
not relate to or are relevant to maintenance of public
order. The activities mentioned cover acts of theft,
robbery etc. but they cannot be considered relevant for the
purpose of public order, in view of our previous decisions.
The detention is consequently set aside.
Petitioner No. 44 (Suvranghshu Mitra). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated April 20, 1968 of the District
Magis-
153
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13
trate, 24 Parganas, made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the
ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to
preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was
forwarded to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that
there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the
Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention
on June 28, 1968. Some of the ,grounds are wholly
irrelevant to maintenance of public order. For instance
ground No. 1 (i) is
"That on 11-10-67 at about 11.45 hrs. you
assaulted Shri Narayanchandra Das of 6A,
Baikuntha Ghose Road, Calcutta-42 with fists
and blows."
He is therefore entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 45. (Madan Mohan Mandal). This petitioner
was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas, dated January 16, 1968 on the ground that it was
necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from -acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. His representation was considered by the Advisory
Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause
for his detention. Thereupon the Government of West Bengal
confirmed the order of detention on May 1, 1968. Some of
the grounds of detention do not appear to be relevant to
maintenance of public order. See for instance ground No. 1
(iv).
Consequently he is entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 46. (Rangalal Debnath). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated March 16, 1968 passed by the
District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the Act
on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order
to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the
Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was
sufficient cause for his detention. The Government of West
Bengal confirmed the order of detention on June 10 1968.
His case is similar to others inasmuch as most of the
grounds are not relevant to the maintenance of public order.
See for instance ground No, 1 (iv).
The detention of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be upheld
and is hereby set aside.
G.C. Petitions allowed.
M7 Sup. CI/69-11
154