Back
High Court Of Orissa
G. B. PATTANAIK, A. K. PADHI
TUKUNA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 1382 Of 1988
Decided On : 06/28/1988
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980 - SECTION 3(2) - PUBLIC ORDER - DETENTION - VALIDITY - SINGLE INCIDENT - REPRESENTATION TO ADVISORY BOARD - COMMUNICATION FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), on the grounds that: (i) the activities complained of related to disputes between private individuals and, therefore, appertained to "law and order" situation and not "public order" situation; (ii) the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was not sent to the Advisory Board for consideration; (iii) the incident narrated in the grounds of detention being a single one and there being no other materials from which a reasonable conclusion could be inferred that the detenu is likely to indulge in such activity in future, the order of detention is liable to be quashed; and (iv) in view of Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA and in the absence of any communication from the Central Government that it did consider the report of the State Government sent to it under Section 3(5), it is only logical to conclude that the Central Government has not applied its mind and considered the report of the State Government, which constitutes an infraction of Section 3(5) of the NSA.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that: (i) the incidents narrated in the grounds of detention affected the public order as its reach and impact was to disturb public tranquillity and, as stated by the detaining authority, it did affect the even tempo of the life of the people in the locality where the incidents are alleged to have occurred; (ii) the representation of the petitioner addressed to the Advisory Board had been forwarded to the Advisory Board and has been considered by the Advisory Board; (iii) the nature of the act and the attendant circumstances are such that it may reasonably justify an inference that the person concerned, if not detained, is likely to indulge in commission of such acts in future; and (iv) the Central Government has not been made a party to this application and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to entertain the contention that there has been an infraction of Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA since there has been no communication from the Central Government that it did consider the report of the State Government sent to it under Section 3(5).
Issues: (i) Whether the activities complained of related to disputes between private individuals and, therefore, appertained to "law and order" situation and not "public order" situation; (ii) Whether the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was sent to the Advisory Board for consideration; (iii) Whether the incident narrated in the grounds of detention being a single one and there being no other materials from which a reasonable conclusion could be inferred that the detenu is likely to indulge in such activity in future, the order of detention is liable to be quashed; and (iv) Whether in view of Sub-Section (5) of Section 3 of the NSA and in the absence of any communication from the Central Government that it did consider the report of the State Government sent to it under Section 3(5), it is only logical to conclude that the Central Government has not applied its mind and considered the report of the State Government, which constitutes an infraction of Section 3(5) of the NSA.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that: (i) the distinction between "law and order" and "public order" lies not in the nature or quality of the act, but in the degree and extent of its reach upon society; (ii) the act by itself is not the determinative factor but its quality, potentiality, the manner in which it was done, the time at which it was done are all factors to be considered; (iii) a single incident may even point to a repetitive tendency; and (iv) there is no requirement of law that the Central Government must communicate the fact to the detenu that it has considered the report of the State Government.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.
G. B. PATNAIK, J.
( 1 ) THE continued detention of detenu of Tukuna alias Satyajit Panda pursuant to an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Cuttack, in exercise of his powers under Sub-S. (2) of S. 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") and approved by the State Government under Sub-S. (4) of the said Section is being assailed in this writ petition. The detaining authority on being satisfied that the detention of the detenu is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has passed the impugned order of detention.
( 2 ) THE grounds of detention which were communicated to the detenu, as required under S. 8 of the Act, have been annexed as Ann-2 to the writ petition. It would be appropriate to extract the grounds of detention :-2. On 28-12-1987 at 10 A. M. yourself and sudhakar Bagedi went to the cattle feed shop of Biswanath Choudhury situated in front of Suraj Talkies onchandini- chowk-Cuttack Chandi Road and demanded subscription for the Club. As he did not pay, both of you threatened him. This fact was intimated to Desraj Agrawalla the complainant, by his brother-in-law Biswanath Choudhury. On the same day at about 9. 45 P. M. yourself, Dillip Behera and two others, all armed with knives went to 'uma Tailoring shop' situated near Suraj Talkies and the house of Desraj Agrawalla and demanded subscription with threats. When Desraj Agrawalla objected to it, you dealt a blow on his face as a result blood oozed out from his nose. As he raised alarm you ran to the nearby sweetmeat shop of Baishnab Singh and bringing a 'dekchi' containing hot water rushed forward to throw it on him. Out of fear he ran inside his house and all of you chased him and entered inside his house. Hearing his alarm his brother-in-law Biswanath Choudhury and sons Sankar, Sraban, Pradip and Satyanarayan came to his rescue and obstructed you all. Thereafter you and your associates came out to the road and started abusing him with threats. Hearing this, his neighbours and neighbouring shopkeepers also assembled there. But none did come forward to help him, as you and your associates hurling the knives were giving threats. As a result the neighbouring house owners and shopkeepers closed the doors of their houses and shops out of fear. The public did not venture to go by that road and all vehicular traffic stopped on the road and the road became isolated. After some time all of you went away towards Chandini-chowk hurling the knives. A reign of terror prevailed in the area for some time and the public were panic-stricken. Due to such action of yours and your associates, public peace and tranquillity was jeopardised. This incident refers to Lalbag P. S. Case No. 549 dt. 28-12-1987 u/s. 385/323/452/506/34 I. P. C. The anti-social and violent activities mentioned in the foregoing paragraph have adversely affected the even tempo of life of the community and disturbed public peace and order. One set of copies and supporting records of this case is enclosed herewith. You are, therefore, informed that if you like, you may file representation against the order of detention to State Government. " the grounds communicated, as extracted above, reveal that the detenu demanded some subscription from one Biswanath Choudhury during the morning hours of 28th of December, 1987, but as he did not pay, the detenu threatened him with dire consequences. Again, in the evening hours, the detenu with his associates armed with knives went to some other shop as well as the house of all inhabitant of the locality and demanded subscription from them with threats and when the demand was not fulfilled the detenu gave two slaps on the face of the person from whom the demand had been made. When alarm was raised the detenu went to the nearby sweet-meat shop and brought forth hot water to pour over the person from whom he had demanded the subscription. With the concerned p
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
