Back
High Court Of Orissa
ANOOP V. MOHTA, ARIJIT PASAYAT
BABULA ALIAS AJIT PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 4115 Of 1994
Decided On : 10/03/1994
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3(2) - PUBLIC ORDER - MAINTENANCE - DETENTION - VALIDITY - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATION - EXPLANATION - REASONABLENESS.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, for allegedly assaulting and threatening hospital staff and patients, creating panic and insecurity, and disrupting public order. The detenu challenged the detention order on the grounds that the alleged incidents were law and order situations, not public order situations, and that there was an inordinate delay in disposing of his representation to the Central Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the alleged incidents came within the realm of public order and that the plea that they related to a law and order situation had no substance. The Court also held that the delay in disposing of the detenu's representation was not unreasonable and that the representation was dealt with utmost dispatch.
Issues: 1. Whether the alleged incidents were public order situations or law and order situations? 2. Whether there was an inordinate delay in disposing of the detenu's representation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that 'public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies that state of tranquillity prevailing among the members of political society as a result of the internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have instituted. The Court further held that a line of demarcation must be drawn between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest. 2. The Court held that the constitutional right of a detenu to file a representation to the Government carries with it impliedly a right that it must be disposed of as quickly as possible and any unexplained delay in that behalf would amount to a violation of the constitutional guarantee contained in clause (5) of Article 22. However, the Court also held that it is neither possible nor advisable to lay down any rigid period of time uniformly applicable to all cases within which the representation of the detenu has to be disposed of with reasonable expedition.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the detenu's petition, holding that there was no scope for interference in the detention order.
PASAYAT, J.
( 1 ) BBULA alias Ajit Pal (hereinafter referred to as 'detenu') has filed this application under Article, 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, quashing order of detention dated 6-3-1994 passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). The order of detention was passed with a view to preventing the detenu from acting any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and directing him to be interned in the Circle Jail, Choudwar, in pursuance of the said mittimus.
( 2 ) GROUNDS necessitating detention as de tailed in the grounds of detention are as follows. On 2-3-1994 at about 4. 45 p. m. the detenu along with one of his associates entered into the City Hospital, Cuttack. He assaulted Sri Bipinbehari Mohapatra, Stenographer to the Chief District Medical Officer, Cuttack and snatched away his wrist watch and cash. He moved inside the City Hospital shouting at the Chief District Medical Officer and other employees of the Hospital and threatened to take away their lives. To terrorise the employees, he assaulted two of them, namely, Sri Bijaya Chandra Das and Sri Durlava Singh. By his violent activities, the general public and employees present there were panic-stricken and had no courage to resist him. Out of fear, mem bers of public, patients who had come for treat ment and employees of the Hospital ran helter and skelter and attending doctors fled away from duties apprehending his deadly attack on them. An essential service like medical service could not be made available to the patients for a period. As the employees deserted their seats out of fear, Government work was hampered and normal functioning of a Government office was paralysed. The City Hospital, though a public place, was left isolated for a period due to his anti- social activities. His violent activities created panic and insecurity in the minds of Government employees and general public, affecting public order and tranquillity in the locality. He left the Hospital with a threatening for serious consequences if any one reports the incident to the police. Members of staff of the Hospital were so terrified that they did not venture to come to the police station on that day. It was reported to the police on the next day. Besides, there are reports of many anti-social activities in the past which prove habitual indulgence in such activities, caus ing grave sense of insecurity and fear in the minds of peace loving people. Ten incidents between the period from 23-6-1990 to 26-11- 1993 were listed, relating to such allegations.
( 3 ) THE order of detention has been primarily attacked on two grounds by the petitioner. (I) Allegations if any do not relate to any public order situation, and even if accepted at their face value constitute law and order situa tion, for which stringent action like preventive detention is impermissible; and (ii) There was inordinate delay in disposal of petitioner's representation by the Central Government. To highlight this aspect, it is submitted that the report of the State Government reached the Union Home Ministry on 27-4-1994. The said Ministry sought for certain vital informa tion on 28-4-1994 from the State Government, by sending a wireless message. On 4-5-1994 necessary information was conveyed by the State Government. The representation was placed before the Union Home Minister on 10-5-1994 and the same was rejected on 17-5-1994 by the Union Home Minister. According to the petitioner, de lay between (a) 4-5-1994 to 10-5-1994 and (b) 10-5-1994 to 17-5-1994 has not been explained. In the counter affidavit filed by the Central Government, it has been stated that on receipt of the fax message from the State Government on 4 -5-1994, the representation was placed before the Deputy Secretary, Home Ministry to consider and put up the same before
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
