The subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the detaining authority, formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the detention order gets vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other are ignored or not considered by the detanining authority before issuing the detention order.

Headnote:
The Court held that the detention order was vitiated as the detaining authority failed to consider the relevant material which could have affected his satisfaction and the fourth ground does not relate to public order.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was detained under the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds that he was involved in four incidents that disturbed public order. The petitioner challenged the legality of his detention on the grounds that the District Magistrate had no power to revoke his order of detention after it is approved by the State Government, the representation made by the petitioner against the detention order was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of his detention, and relevant material relating to the grounds of detention was not placed before the detaining authority.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the District Magistrate had the power to revoke the detention order even after it had been approved by the State Government. The Court also held that the representation made by the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of his detention, but this delay did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. However, the Court held that relevant material relating to the grounds of detention was not placed before the detaining authority and this vitiated the detention order.
Issues: 1. Whether the District Magistrate had the power to revoke the detention order after it is approved by the State Government? 2. Whether the representation made by the petitioner against the detention order was placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of his detention? 3. Whether relevant material relating to the grounds of detention was placed before the detaining authority?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the District Magistrate had the power to revoke the detention order even after it had been approved by the State Government, relying on the case of Dulal Chandra Ghosh Ltd. v. District Magistrate Birbhum, 1974 CrLJ 24. The Court held that Section 3 (4) of the Act empowers the State Government to revoke an order made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act, and this power includes a power exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions, if any, to rescind any order. The Court held that therefore, the District Magistrate is empowered to revoke the detention order even after it is approved by the State Government. 2. The Court held that the representation made by the petitioner was not placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks of the date of his detention, but this delay did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The Court relied on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Sri Shamsher Singh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 107 and 108 of 1985, wherein the Supreme Court held that while the State Government is bound to place before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order has been made within a period of 21 days, its obligation in respect of a representation received from a detenu merely is not to withheld the same and to place it expeditiously and without delay before the Board. The Court held that therefore, the delay in placing the representation before the Advisory Board did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. 3. The Court held that relevant material relating to the grounds of detention was not placed before the detaining authority and this vitiated the detention order. The Court relied on the case of Asha Devi v. K. Shivraj, AIR 1979 SC 447, wherein the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the detaining authority, formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the detention order gets vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other are ignored or not considered by the detanining authority before issuing the detention order. The Court held that therefore, the failure of the detaining authority to consider the relevant material relating to the grounds of detention vitiated the detention order.
Final Decision: The Court held that the detention order was vitiated as the detaining authority failed to consider the relevant material which could have affected his satisfaction and the fourth ground does not relate to public order. The Court directed the petitioner to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with some other case.

JUDGMENT

B. N. Katju, J.

1. In view of the opinion of the majority, the petition succeeds and is allowed. We direct the respondents, not to keep the petitioner under detention in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 10-9-1984, and to release him from custody forthwith unless he is required to be detained in connection with any other case. This is a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. It has been referred to us for decision as it involved question of law of general importance.

2. The petitioner was detained in Central Jail Naini, Allahabad under the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 9-8-1984 passed under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aforesaid order of detention was approved by the State Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act on 18-8-1984. The petitioner filed habeas corpus writ petition No. 10159 of 1984 challenging the legality of his detention which was admitted by this Court on 21-8-1984. The order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 9-8-1984 under Section 3 (2) of the Act was subsequently revoked by the District Magistrate, Allahabad by his order dated 9-9-1984 and the District Magistrate, Allahabad passed a second order of detention against the petitioner under Section 3 (2) of the Act on 10-9-1984 which was served on the petitioner in jail on 10-9-1984 along with the grounds of detention and other relevant material. The petitioner is confined in Central Jail, Naini, Allahabad under this order of detention.

The detention orders were passed with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community.

3. The grounds of detention are four in number. It is mentioned in the first ground of detention that on 12-6-1983 while auction was taking place at the I. T. I. Factory in Naini, Allahabad, the petitioner armed with pistol and cartridges reached the place of auction and threatened the persons who were present there and were bidding. On receiving information regarding the aforesaid incident Ramakant Misra S. H. O. Police Station Naini, Allahabad along with his staff and witnesses went to the place of auction and objected whereupon the petitioner fired at the police party with the intention of killing them and thereafter ran towards east but he was beaten and caught at about 12.30 p. m. and on a search being taken one pistol, one fired cartridge and four live cartridges were recovered from his possession. Case crime no. 248 of 1983 under Section 307 IPC, and Section 25/27 Arms Act was registered at Police Station Naini regarding the aforesaid incident and after investigation charge sheet was submitted and the aforesaid case is pending in Court. The aforesaid incident created fear in the general public and adversely affected public order.

4. It is mentioned in the second ground of detention that on 11-2-1984 at 11.30 a. m. in village Chak Tejau the petitioner along with his associates armed with guns fired at Ram Chandra Dixit which resulted in his death and looted his gun. The aforesaid incident created fear in the public of the vicinity and adversely affected public order, Case Crime no. 72 of 1984 under Sections 147/149/302/404 IPC was registered at Police Station Naini, Allahabad regarding the aforesaid incident and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted and the case is pending in Count.

It is mentioned in the third ground of detention that on 11-9-1984 information was received at Police Station Bara that at about midnight between 10-5-1984 and 11-5-1984 near village Padar close to the tent of U. P. Electricity Board of 33 KV Rewa R?ad Pratap Pur line aluminium wire and other articles valued at Rs. 1,06,000/- were looted by about thirty persons after threatening the Chaukidar by pistols sand was taken away on a truck as a result of which the construction work at 33 KV Re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1985 Supreme(All) 240

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD H.N. SETH, K.N. SINGH, B.N. KATJU, JJ. Munnni Lal - Appellant VersusSuperintendent Of Central Jail Naini, Allahabad - Respondent Habeas Corpus Petition No. 12439 of 1984 connected with Habeas Corpus Petition No. 10256, 10159, 12438 and 11151 of 1984 Decided on : Aug 01, 1985

Cases Referred (2)