1989 Supreme(All) 594

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K.P.Singh, M.P.Singh
VASHIST NARAIN KARWARIA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 12 December 1989
Habeas Corpus W. P. No. 13644 of 1989

The Court held that the petitioner's acts on the day of the auction created terror and panic in the public and disturbed public order, that the detaining authority was qualified to pass the detention order, and that the petitioner was not denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order.

Headnote:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT - Detention - Grounds - Validity - Petitioner, along with three others, was detained under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) for allegedly creating terror and panic in the public by threatening bidders at an auction of country and Indian made foreign liquor shops and firing at the police party. The petitioner challenged the detention on various grounds, including that the detaining authority was not qualified to pass the detention order as he was an eye-witness to the incident, that the detention was not necessary to prevent the commission of any act prejudicial to law and public order, and that he was denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order.

Fact of the Case:

On 30-3-1988, an auction of country and Indian made foreign liquor shops was held in an enclosed place protected by the police in the Collectorate at Allahabad. The petitioner, along with three other persons, was present on the occasion for participating in the said auction. A large number of other bidders were also present. The District Magistrate, Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, was conducting the auction. It started at 10.30 a.m. The petitioner's bid was for a sum of Rs. 51 lacs for the Chail sector of the country-liquor shop. It was not accepted. At about 3.30 p.m., Muratganj Indian made foreign liquor shop was to be auctioned. Some controversy arose about this auction. After Ajai Kumar and Chhedi Lal had made their bids for Muratganj liquor shop, the petitioner along with three other associates stood up and threatened Ajai Kumar, Chhedi Lal and all prospective bidders present in the Pandal saying that the shop belonged to his area and if anybody dared to bid at the shop, he would shoot him. He would also destroy the entire family. This created a terror and panic in the public present there. Immediately thereafter the petitioner along with three other associates stood and advanced towards Chhedi Lal and Ajai Kumar threatening them with dire consequences. As the situation was going to become worse, Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Station Officer, alongwith other police officials advanced towards the petitioner and his associates to arrest them. Seeing the police party coming towards then, the petitioner fired at the police party with his country- made pistol. As soon as the police party tried to take out their weapon, the petitioner escaped from the Pandal but was chased by the police party. Another shot was fired by the petitioner on the police party. Undeterred from the firing by the petitioner, the police persisted the chase. The petitioner thereupon again fired and bombs were also hurled by him on the policy party. The firing and the notice of the bombs explosion created panic in the Pandal too. The people sitting in the Pandal started running away on the Kutchery road and shop keepers also started running away saving their lives. Public order was completely disturbed. At 4.30 p.m. first information report was lodged by Sri Rana Pratap Singh, Station Officer, in police station Colonelganj against the petitioner under Sections 307 and 506, I.P.C. Sri P. C. Chaturvedi, the District Magistrate, on being satisfied, that it was necessary to do so, passed an order on 31-3-1988 under Section 3 (3) of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's acts on the day of the auction created terror and panic in the public and disturbed public order. The Court also found that the detaining authority was qualified to pass the detention order as he was not an eye-witness to the incident. Further, the Court found that the petitioner was not denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's acts on the day of the auction created terror and panic in the public and disturbed public order? 2. Whether the detaining authority was qualified to pass the detention order? 3. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's acts on the day of the auction created terror and panic in the public and disturbed public order. The Court relied on the fact that the petitioner had threatened the bidders at the auction, fired at the police party, and hurled bombs at the police party. The Court also noted that the petitioner's actions had caused the people in the Pandal to run away in panic and that shop keepers had also started running away saving their lives. 2. The Court held that the detaining authority was qualified to pass the detention order as he was not an eye-witness to the incident. The Court noted that the detaining authority had relied on the first information report lodged by the Station Officer of the police station and on the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Court also noted that the detaining authority had given the petitioner an opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. 3. The Court held that the petitioner was not denied the opportunity of making an effective representation against the detention order. The Court noted that the petitioner had been served with a copy of the detention order and the grounds of detention and that he had been given an opportunity to make a representation to the Advisory Board. The Court also noted that the petitioner had made a representation to the Advisory Board and that the Advisory Board had considered the representation and had recommended that the detention order be confirmed.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and upheld the detention order.