Back
1960 Supreme(P&H) 21
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Grover, J.
Ravinder Kumar Sardari Lal
Versus
District Magistrate, Delhi
Criminal Writ No. 27-D of 1960,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 1, 1960
The detention order was invalid as it was based on irrelevant grounds and the inclusion of irrelevant grounds vitiated the entire order.
Headnote:
PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT - MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER - RELEVANCE OF GROUNDS - DETENTION ORDER BASED ON IRRELEVANT GROUNDS - VALIDITY - ADVISORY BOARD'S OPINION - EFFECT ON WRIT PETITION UNDER ART. 226.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged an order of detention made against him under S. 3(1)(a)(ii) read with sub-section (2)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on the ground that it was illegal, mala fide, etc. The grounds of detention included alleged thefts, gambling, rowdism, excessive drinking, assaults, house trespass, etc.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the detention order was invalid as it was based on irrelevant grounds. The activities alleged against the petitioner, such as thefts, gambling, drinking, etc., were not relevant to the maintenance of public order. The Court also held that the inclusion of irrelevant grounds vitiated the entire order, as it was impossible to say what the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would have been on the exclusion of those grounds.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was based on relevant grounds. 2. Whether the inclusion of irrelevant grounds vitiated the entire order. 3. Whether the opinion of the Advisory Board barred the writ petition under Art. 226.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the activities alleged against the petitioner, such as thefts, gambling, drinking, etc., were not relevant to the maintenance of public order. The Court relied on previous judgments of the Patna and Rajasthan High Courts, which held that only serious and aggravated forms of public disorder that endangered the security of the State would justify detention under the Preventive Detention Act. 2. The Court held that the inclusion of irrelevant grounds vitiated the entire order, as it was impossible to say what the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority would have been on the exclusion of those grounds. The Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dwarka Dass Bhatia V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, which held that if some grounds for detention are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the order cannot be upheld even if other grounds are valid. 3. The Court held that the opinion of the Advisory Board did not bar the writ petition under Art. 226. The Court held that the Preventive Detention Act did not set up any such bar and that the powers conferred by the Constitution under Art. 226 could not be curtailed by any provision in a statute.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the detention order. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
1. This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which an order of detention made against the petitioner on 5-12-1959 by the District Magistrate of Delhi under S. 3(1)(a)(ii) read with sub-section (2)(a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, has been challenged inter alia on the ground that it is illegal, mala fide etc.
2. The petitioner was supplied the ground of detention which may be grouped in the following manner:
1. Grounds Nos. 2 and 4 relate to certain thefts alleged to have been committed by the petitioner in the years 1954 and 1955. In the first case he was convicted and ordered to furnish surety for good behavior under S. 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the second case only the first information report was registered and all that is stated in the grounds is that the investigation reveled that there was a strong suspicion of the petitioners complicity in the theft.
2. Ground No. 3 related to an offence under S. 13 of the Public Gambling Act for which the petitioner was convicted in 1955, the sentence being a fine of Rs. 20/-.
3. Grounds Nos. 5, 6 13 and 16 relate to alleged proceedings under S. 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code, in all of which he was discharged.
4. Grounds Nos. 7, 15, and 17 relate to certain assaults of a fairly serious nature committed by the petitioner. He was acquitted in the first one. The other one is sub-judice and no challan has been sent up in the third one.
5. Ground No. 8 relates to house trespass in October 1956 in which the petitioner was acquitted.
6. Ground No. 9 relates to an offence under S. 55/109, Criminal Procedure Code, in which the petitioner was order to furnish surety for good behavior.
7. Grounds Nos. 10,11 and 14 relate to allegations of excessive drinking and rowdism in public places. One of those matters is still sub judice and in the other two he was fined Rs. 15/- and Rs. 5/- respectively.
8. Ground No. 12 relates to an offence under S. 8 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act in which the petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- but he was finally acquitted by the appellate Court.
9. Ground No. 18 relates to an alleged offence under S. 19 of the Arms Act which matter is still under investigation.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the detention order could be sustained as legal only if the grounds are relevant to the maintenance of public order within the meaning of Section 3 (1)(a)(ii) of the Act. It is submitted that practically all the activities which are alleged against the petitioner, e.g., thieving, gambling, rowdism, excessive drinking, assaulting people etc. cannot possibly be regarded to be such activities as are in any manner prejudical to the maintenance of public order. It is further contended that even if some of these activities, namely, those stated in grounds Nos. 7, 13, 15, 16 and 17 are of such a nature as to justify the petitioner being regarded as a dangerous and desperate character or a goonda, the detention order cannot be sustained as legal because the other activities which have already been mentioned are such as have nothing to do with the maintenance of public order and if the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is based on those activities which are not relevant to the object of detention, the entire order would be vitiated.
4. The first question that has to be determined is the meaning of the words "maintenance of public order" as used in the context of S. 3 of the Act. In Lalu Gope V/s. The King AIR 1949 Pat 299, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court had occasion to consider this matter while examining the validity of a detention order made under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1957, when certain habitual criminals had been detained. It was observed that prima facie the persons against whom the orders of detention were authorised to be made were persons engaged in activities which were likely to lead to public disorder or domestic viol
