JUDGMENT

VARADARAJAN, J.:— On 31st Mar. 1982, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we quashed the order of detention in this case, observing that our reasons will follow. We proceed to give the reasons.

2. This Writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India is by Smt. Bimla Dewan, wife of the detenu Shri Dev Raj Dewan, resident of House No. 53, Gadodia Road, 146/2 Than Singh Nagar, Anand, Parbat, Delhi, for, quashing the order of detention dated 25-9-1981 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Sec. 3. (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detenu was detained from 26-9-1981. The order of detention is said to have been approved by the respondent, Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, by order dated 1-10-1981 under S., 3 (4) of the Act. The detenu had been detained in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.

3. It is alleged in the petition that the detenu is a social worker, who is in active politics, and had contested the Municipal Elections of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi from the Anand Parbat constituency in 1977 and was defeated by a Congress-I candidate by a narrow margin of 360 votes, and due to Political rivalry he has been involved from time to time in a number of false cases, in most of which he has succeeded in proving his innocence and was acquitted. It is further alleged in the petition that out of sheer political vendetta the detenu has been detained malaciously with full knowledge that the alleged activities of the detenu, even if true do not fall within the concept of threat to public order. The arrest or prosecution of detenu cannot by itself, be a ground of detention. It is only the material on the basis of which the detenu is arrested, prosecuted or convicted that can constitute a ground of detention. But no such material, including the blue film mentioned in item 28 of paragraph 2 of the grounds of detention has been supplied to the detenu and it has, therefore, become impossible for him to make any effective representation against his detention. No opportunity was given to the detenu to make a representation to the detaining authority. The detenu challenged his detention by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 126 of 1981 in the High Court of Delhi on 13-10-1981. But since no order had been passed in that petition though arguments were heard in Nov. 1981, this writ petition has been filed in the SC on 3-3-1982.

4. It is alleged in the grounds of detention in which 32 instances have been given that those acts of the detenu show that he is a desperate and dangerous character who acts in a manner which ,is prejudicial to maintenance of public order, that his activities are hazardous to the community and he has not stopped his violent, anti-social and criminal activities in spite of his prosecution in a number of cases, and that in these circumstances his detention under S. 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 has been considered essential in order to stop his criminal activities.

5. In the counter-affidavit it is stated at the outset that the High Court of Delhi has by an order dated 4-3-1982 dismissed Criminal Writ Petition., No. 126 of 1981 which was filed for quashing the very same order of detention dated 25-9-1981 and that the present writ petition is consequently not maintainable and only an appeal to this Court against the judgment of the High Court could be filed. It is contended that there is nothing on record to show that the detenu is a social worker. The counter-affidavit further proceeds to state that the criminal history of the detenu as disclosed the grounds of detention goes to show at he has been a serious threat to maintenance of public order and that whenever any police officer or any other agency tried to interfere in the matter he had assaulted, obstructed or attempted to murder him and that detention under the Act is the only way to prevent him from indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order. It is stated that Copies of all fi