Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A S. Srivastava and S. I. Jafri, JJ.
DEVENDRA KUMAR GOEL ALIAS BABUA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARPRADESH - Respondents
H. C. Writ Petition 14621 Of 1984
Decided On : 01/29/1985
NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - DETENTION - SECTION 3 (2) - SUPPLIES AND SERVICES - INTERPRETATION - ACTIVITIES PREJUDICIAL TO MAINTENANCE OF SERVICES ESSENTIAL TO COMMUNITY - CONJUNCTIVE OR DISJUNCTIVE READING OF SUPPLIES AND SERVICES - SECTION 10 - MANDATORY COMPLIANCE - REPRESENTATION OF DETENU - TIME LIMIT FOR PLACING BEFORE ADVISORY BOARD - VIOLATION - ILLEGALITY OF DETENTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Devendra Kumar Goyal, was detained under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the District Magistrate, Aligarh, on the grounds that his activities of issuing forged permits and passports were prejudicial to the maintenance of services essential to the community. The petitioner challenged his detention by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of services essential to the community, as they affected the services rendered by the Transport Office and the Passport Office, which are essential to the community. The Court further held that the detention of the petitioner was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 10 of the Act, which mandates the appropriate Government to place the grounds of detention, the representation of the detenu, and the report of the detaining authority before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of services essential to the community within the meaning of Section 3 (2) of the Act. 2. Whether the expression "supplies and services" in Section 3 (2) of the Act should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. 3. Whether the provisions of Section 10 of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the detention illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's activities of issuing forged permits and passports were prejudicial to the maintenance of services essential to the community, as they affected the services rendered by the Transport Office and the Passport Office, which are essential to the community. 2. The Court held that the expression "supplies and services" in Section 3 (2) of the Act should be read disjunctively, as the words "supplies" and "services" are words of different and distinctive connotation. 3. The Court held that the provisions of Section 10 of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance thereof renders the detention illegal, as it places a duty on the appropriate Government to place the grounds of detention, the representation of the detenu, and the report of the detaining authority before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of detention.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order dated 20-9-1984 passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act by the District Magistrate, Aligarh.
( 1 ) DEVENDRA Kumar Goyal alias Babua resident of 5/89, Guru Tej Bahadur Road, Masooabad, Aligarh, has by this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged his detention by the District Magistrate, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the detaining authority) by an order dated 20. 9-84 passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) THE petitioner was arrested on 21-9-84 in pursuance of the aforesaid order of detention dated 20-9-84 and was lodged in the District Jail, Aligarh. The detaining authority sent copies of the order of detention, the grounds of detention and all relevant material to the State Government on the same day, i. e. 20-9-84 On 29-9-84 the State Government approved the order of detention of the petitioner. On the same day the State Government also informed the Central Government about the order of detention vide Radiogram No. 111/21 209/84-CK 6 dated 29-9-84 as contemplated under Section 3 (6) of the Act. The State Governments order of approval was also communicated to the petitioner through the Superintendent, Distt. Jail, Aligarh.
( 3 ) ON 7-10-84 the petitioner made a representation against the order of his detention which was received by the detaining authority on the same day i. e. 7-10-84. The representation was forwarded by the detaining authority to the State Government on 9. 10-84 alongwith its comments thereon. It was received in the concerned Section of the State Government on 10-1984. On that date several other representations made under the Act were pending in the Section. On account of increase of number of detentions in the State during that period by two to three times then the number of detention made during this period in previous years, the entire staff of the Section worked day and night in clearing up representations received against these orders of detentions serially. The turn of the petitioners representation came on 15-10-84. It may also be pointed out that during this period, 13th (Second) Saturday of the months and 14th October, (Sunday) were holidays. The section took three days, i. e. 16th, 17th and 18th October, 1984, to examine the representation of the petitioner at various levels. On 19. 10-84 it was placed before the joint Secretary (Home) who, after examining the same, forwarded it to the Home Secretary on the same day. The Home Secretary submitted it to the Government for final orders. It was ultimately rejected by the State Government on 23-10-84.
( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board only 1-10-84, i. e. before the representation of the petitioner dated 7-10-84 was received by the State Government. On 15- 10. 84 the representation dated 7-1984 which was received by the State Government on 10-10. 84 was also placed before the Advisory Board. After receipt of the report from the Advisory Board the State Government confirmed the detention order on 16-11-84.
( 5 ) THE grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has been ordered by the detaining authority are as under;
1. On 4-10. 83 Sri Shailesh Krishna, I. A. S. City Magistrate, Aligarh, raided the residence of the petition wherein various categories of blank forms and forged proforma connected with the Motor Vehicles Department of the State of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Bengal, Bihar and Orissa were recovered The seals of officers of the Motor Vehicles Department and forged permits were also recovered alongwith the incriminating articles. Besides machines used for making the aforesaid documents were also found. During the course of raid, a pass-book of the Central Bank of India with Rs. 64,000/ as balance and 11/2 kg. of opium were also recovered by him. Two cases (Crime No. 413/ 1983 and 414/1983) registered at the police station against the petitioner under Sections 420/467/468 109 IPC, and under Section 9 of the Opium Act are under investigation by th
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
