SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 219

SUPREME COUTR OF INDIA
A.N. GROVER AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Nandalal Roy, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Writ Ptn. No. 15 of 1972, D/- 11-4-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Om Prakash Sharma, Advocate, amicus curiae for Petitioner, Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate for M/s. Sukumar Basu and Co., for Respondent.

Advocates:
G.S.CHATTERJEE, OM PRAKASH SHARMA, Sukumar Basu

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 32 - West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 – Section 3(3) r/w(1),10 and 11- Theft of rice - This is a petition under Art, 32 of Constitution challenging detention of the petitioner under West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 - That on the night while committing theft of rice from Rly. Station yard, associates charged bombs upon the R. P. F. Party on duty with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them - As a result of your bomb charge of the R. P. F. Party sustained burn injury on his person - But the R. P. F. Party with help of the police party managed to secure your arrest on the spot with 30 kgs of stolen rice in a gunny bag and one iron-made instrument - By explosion of bombs associates created panic in station area and in adjoining locality you cause disturbance of the public order thereby - Whether particulars given in grounds of detention are relevant to maintenance of public order – Held, in court opinion acts attributed to detenu are such as would bring him squarely within the ambit of cls. (b) and (d) of S. 3 (2) of the Act. Attacking the Railway Police Party with bombs at Railway Station Yard is surely a serious matter and was bound to cause a scare among all the members of public who would be visiting the station yard and interfere with their activities of getting the goods loaded or unloaded - It was not a mere question of maintenance of law and order - It was a kind of disturbance which would be comprehended by the expression "order public" as explained in Madhu Limaye s case AIR 1971 SC 2486 - Acts may be sometimes similar in quality but what has to be seen is their potentiality in the sense as to what reverberations may be caused which might affect the even tempo of the life of the community - Were satisfied that there is no merit in this petition and it is therefore dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petition challenges detention under the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970, challenging grounds under S.3(2)(b) and S.3(2)(d) as they relate to public order. (!) - The grounds allege that the detenu attacked the Railway Police Party with bombs at the Railway Station Yard, causing panic and disturbance of public order, which is not mere maintenance of law and order but falls within order publique as explained in Madhu Limaye’s case (AIR 1971 SC 2486). (!) - The Court held that the acts attributed to the detenu would bring him squarely within cls. (b) and (d) of S. 3(2) of the Act, i.e., within the ambit of maintenance of public order. (!) - The decision references that the disturbance would be comprehended by the expression "order publique" as explained in Madhu Limaye’s case. (!) - The petition was dismissed as lacking merit. (!) - Contemporaneous procedural details: detention order dated June 17, 1971; grounds served June 20, 1971; representation process under sections 10 and 11; Advisory Board consideration; Government confirmation. (!) (!) (!) - The central issue concerns whether the particulars in the grounds are relevant to maintenance of public order. The court answered affirmatively. (!)

What is the scope of public order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 as it relates to detention under S.3(2)(b) and S.3(2)(d)?

What is the Court's conclusion regarding whether the grounds of detention for the petitioner relate to maintenance of public order within the meaning of the Act and Madhu Limaye’s case?


Judgement

GROVER, J.:- This is a petition under Art, 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of the petitioner under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, hereinafter called the Act .

2. An order was made on June 17, 1971 by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas saying that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order he be detained. This order was made in exercise of the power conferred by sub-s. (1) read with sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Act. The detenu was arrested on June 20, 1971 and the grounds were served on him on that date. The only ground for detention was as follows :

"That on the night of 1-6-71 at about 01.30 hrs. while committing theft of rice from Wagon No. SE 39751 at Bongaon Rly. Station yard, you and your associates charged bombs upon the R. P. F. Party on duty with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them. As a result of your bomb charge SR 3179 Himunshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R. P. F. Party sustained burn injury on his person. But the R. P. F. Party with the help of the police party managed to secure your arrest on the spot with 30 kgs. of stolen rice in a gunny bag and one iron-made instrument. By explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality you cause disturbance of the public order thereby.

You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation shall be addressed to the Assistance Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of the jail in which you have been detained as early as possible. Under section 10 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act 1970. (President s Act No. 19 of 1970). your case shall be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of you detention under the order.

You are also informed that under Section 11 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act 1970, (President s Act No. 19 of 1970) the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government."

The State Government approved of the order of detention on June 28, 1971. As required by the provisions of the Act a report was made to the Central Government on the same date. The case of the detenu was placed before the Board on July 19, 1971, his representation having been received earlier. The representation was also considered by the government and was rejected on July 19, 1971. The decision of the Advisory Board was given on August 23, 1971 pursuant to which the State Government confirmed the detention by an order dated September 3, 1971.

3. The only question for consideration is whether the particulars given in the grounds of detention are relevant to maintenance of public order. There can be no manner of doubt that the acts attributed to the petitioner would fall within cls. (b) and (d) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Act. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations made against him do not satisfy the test laid down by this Court in the various decisions about the meaning of the expression public order".

4. In our opinion the acts attributed to the detenu are such as would bring him squarely within the ambit of cls. (b) and (d) of S. 3 (2) of the Act. Attacking the Railway Police Party with bombs at the Railway Station Yard is surely a serious matter and was bound to cause a scare among all the members of the public who would be visiting the station yard and interfere with their activities of getting the goods loaded or unloaded. It was not a mere question of maintenance of law and order. It was a kind of disturbance which would be comprehended by the expression "order publique" as explained in Madhu Limaye s case. AIR 1971 SC 2486. The acts may be so



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top