Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 658
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT ITANAGAR BENCH
ROBIN PHUKAN, KARDAK ETE, JJ.
Tadak Nalo S/o Tanga Byaling – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1, 2 of 2023
Decided On : 21-06-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Sarma.
Point of Law: Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to society. Object is not to punish a man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to prevent him from doing.
Headnote:
Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014 - Section 3(i), 7, (1)(a), 2(viii), (xi), 8(i) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 82 - Detention order - Proclaimed offender - Unlawful person - Petition challenge detention order passed issuing proclamation against under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and declaring him as proclaimed offender – Passing of impugned orders more than one month had already elapsed, and authority concerned had failed to execute orders - Para 28.
Finding of the Court:
Drawing premises from illuminating discourse, and reminding about role, required to be played in cases of preventive detention, Court is inclined to hold that impugned detention orders becomes non-existent or stale on ground of delay in execution of same, and on that count live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention stands snapped - Both impugned orders requires interference of court - Impugned orders are set aside and quashed.
Result: Petitions allowed.
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh appearing for the State/respondents.
2. As a common question of law is involved in both these writ petitions, being WP (Crl.) No. 1(AP)/2023 and WP (Crl.) No. 2(AP)/2023, and as agreed by learned Advocates of both sides, it is proposed to dispose of both these petitions, by this common judgment and order.
3. In writ petition (Crl.) No. 1 (AP)/2023, the petitioner - Sri Techi Puru, has put to challenge the detention order, dated 10.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-35/843, under Section 3(i) of the Arunachal Pradesh Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2014, (hereinafter referred as ‘the APUAPA’) as well as the order dated 20.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-35, passed by the District Magistrate, Capital: Itanagar, issuing proclamation against under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and declaring him as proclaimed offender under section 7 of APUAPA.
4. And in the writ petition (Crl.) No. 2 (AP)/2023, the petitioner - Sri Tadak Nalo has put to challenge the detention order, dated 11.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-39, passed under section 3(i) of APUAPA, as well as the order dated 20.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-39, passed by the District Magistrate, Capital: Itanagar, issuing proclamation against him under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender under Section 7 of APUAPA.
Background Facts:
5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present two writ petitions are adumbrated herein-below:
“A group of individuals have declared three days Capital Bandh from 10th to 12th May, 2023 to persuade their various demands with the Government, in connection with the paper leakage case of Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). Thereafter, the District Magistrate, Capital: Itanagar, vide order dated 06.05.2023, No. DM/ Capital/Jud-01/2023, under Section 144 Cr.P.C, read with APUAPA, has declared the aforesaid Capital Bandh from 10th to 12th May, 2023 as illegal and prohibited the same under the law. In doing so, the District Magistrate had relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7728/29 of 1997 (CPI vs. Bharat Kumar and Others). It is to be noted here that in the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court had termed any bandh call, given by any political parties or organizations or association or groups or individuals, as unconstitutional and illegal.
Thereafter, the District Magistrate, had found that the present petitioners, namely, Sri Techi Puru and Sri Tadak Nalo had taken active part in the said bandh call and they refused to co-operate with the District Administration, and intended to go ahead with the proposed bandh call. They came out of their respective houses and instigated the public to participate in the bandh call through various means. And such activities of the petitioners had directly caused a feeling of insecurity, danger among the general public, disruption of daily supplies and essential services to the public. Then having been satisfied, the District Magistrate had declared both of them as ‘unlawful person’ in terms of Section 2(viii) of the APUAPA, 2014. Thereafter, the District Magistrate had passed the impugned detention orders, dated 10.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-35/843, against Techi Puru, and the order dated 11.05.2023, No. DM/ICC/APUAPA/01/2023-39, against Tadak Nalo, under Section 3(i) of the APUAPA.
Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Capital Itanagar, vide his letter No. SPC/ITA/CR-96/23, dated 20.05.2023, had submitted a report to the District Magistrate stating that all necessary efforts have been made to apprehend Sri Techi Puru and Sri Tadak Nalo, but the same failed to yield any result, and the detention order could not be executed and they are absconding and concealing themselves from being detained by police and that they are also trying to instigate the public and
