Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJ1, J.:-- This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the detention of the petitioner - a detenu, under S, 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner is a bachelor. He does not own any property. The order for detention under S. 3(2) of the Act was passed on April 15, 1988 by the District Magistrate, Meerut. In the grounds of detention it is stated that on the night of 2/3rd April, 1988 which was an occasion of "Shabberat" festival, a muslim festival, the religious celebration was going on at Gudri Chaupala. At about 11 p,m. in the night on that day, a cow belonging to the muslims of Ismail Nagar came from Sabun Garan towards Choupal Gudri and was going towards Ismail Nagar and, according to the order of detention, some undesirable elements present there did not allow the cow to go on the right way and she again came towards Chaupala Gudri, and was made to run avoiding the crowd towards Nakkar Chain but near the shop of Haj Dhola, some undesirable elements stopped the cow and poked a wood piece on her back. Due to this the cow started pumping and himping and ran inside the celebration. It is stated that at this the petitioner came to the stage, got excited and spread the rumour that "the police had not made any arrangements". It was stated that the cow belonged to the Hindus and had been deliberately sent inside the festival and "other provoking" things. Due to the aforesaid, the people started running and communal feelings got around, It is stated in the order of detention that in this way the petitioner had committed an act which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Again on 9th April, 1988 at about 9 p.m. near Transformer at Gudri Chaupala P. S. Kotwali, the petitioner is alleged to have, provoked some persons" of the muslim community by saying that "the administration even now has not allowed to get a loud speaker fixed here and all of you are silent, get a loud speaker on the Mosque and we will see. I am with you". It is also stated that the petitioner had also said that on the occasion of Shabberat these Hindus had deliberately, sent their cow on the road" for their festive celebrations and the "people are silent". He had also said about teaching "them" a lesson.

2. It was stated that due to the "aforesaid bad act", communal feelings got aroused in the Meerut city and fear and terror got spread, and in this way the petitioner had done an act which was "prejudicial to maintenance of public law and order". In the aforesaid, it was stated that for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, there was possibility of the petitioner doing such an act, and therefore in order to restrain the petitioner from doing so, it is necessary to detain him. Accordingly, the order was passed with consequential directions and information.

3. As mentioned hereinbefore, the alleged incidents were on 2/ 3/ 4th April, 1988 as well as 9th April, 1988. The order of detention (hereinafter referred to the order) was made on 15th April, 1988. The petitioner was arrested pursuant to the said order on 2nd October, 1988. There was representation but the same was rejected and the order of detention was confirmed.

4. In this petition various grounds have been taken before this Court challenging the order under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Mr. C. P. Mittal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, urged before us three grounds upon which he contended that the said order be quashed or set aside. It was submitted by Mr. Mittal that there was .inordinate delay in arresting the petitioner pursuant to the order, which indicated that the order was not based on a bona fide and genuine belief that the action or conduct of the petitioner were such that the same were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that preventive detention of the petitioner was necessary for preventing him from such conduct. He further submitted that delay in the circumstances of this case i