17 December 1968
Supreme Court
Download

IN RE: SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS Vs


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: IN RE: SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/12/1968

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1969 AIR 1004            1969 SCR  (3) 138  1969 SCC  (1) 273

ACT: Constitution of India, 1950, Art 22(5) -Prevention Detention Act 4 of 1950 s. 3(2)-Grounds of detention-Detention  cannot be upheld if any of the grounds is irrelevant-Maintenance of public order when affected.

HEADNOTE: The petitioners were detained under the Preventive Detention Act,  1950.  They filed a petition for Habeas  Corpus  under Art.  32  of the Constitution.  The Court  considered  their cases individually in the light -of the grounds of detention supplied to them. HELD  :(i)  If  some  of the grounds  which  are  given  are irrelevant  the order of detention cannot be upheld  because the court cannot predicate what the subjective  satisfaction of  the authority would have been on the exclusion of  those reasons. [139 H] Dwarka  Das Bhatia v. The State of Jammu &  Kashmir,  [1956] S.C.R.  945 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of  West  Bengal, [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635, applied. (ii) The  grounds supplied to most of the  petitioners  were not  relevant  to the ’maintenance of  public  order’.   The contravention of any law always affects order but before  it can be said to affect public order it must affect the public or  the community at large.  A mere disturbance of  law  and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient  for action  under  the Act but a disturbance which  will  affect public  order can alone justify detention under  that  head. [141 B-C] (iii)     Citizens  must not be detained under the  Act  for petty  matters and the grounds must be reasonably  proximate in time. [141 D]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition    No. 328 of 1968. Petition  under Art. 32 -of the Constitution of India for  a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. R. K. Garg, for the petitioners.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

Debabrata Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu- tion  by  Sushanta Goswami and 46 others for a writ  in  the nature  of  Habeas Corpus challenging the detention  of  the petitioners under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act 1950, hereinafter called the "Act". Petitioner No. 4 Krishna Mondal and Petitioner No. 21  Madhu Kanjilal  are stated to have been released.  No orders  need he                             139 made with regard to them.  As regards petitioners Nos. 2, 8, 9, 15, 22, 24, 32, 41 and 47 their matters will be taken  up for  consideration later as the State has been  directed  to file  further affidavits.  We now proceed to dispose of  the cases of the other petitioners. Petitioner  No.  1 (Sushanta Goswami)  This  petitioner  was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24  Parganas dated  July 30, 1968.  His detention was directed  under  s. 3(2)  of the Act on the ground that it was necessary with  a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order.   The  grounds  were supplied to him and he made a representation to the Advisory Board  which, after hearing the petitioner  and  considering his  representation,  expressed its opinion that  there  was sufficient  cause  for  his  detention.   Consequently   the detention  order  dated  July  30,  1968  was  confirmed  on September  20, 1968 by the Government of West  Bengal.   The grounds for detention have been perused by us.  According to the first ground the petitioner had been committing offences of  forming  unlawful assembly, assaulting  the  police  and peaceful  inhabitants,  snatching away cash  and  valuables, teasing   school  girls  and  criminal  intimidation.    The instances  which  were given are seven out of  which  it  is necessary to mention only the following which are typical               "  (ii)  That on 14-11-66 at 21.15  hrs.,  you               with   your  associates  formed  an   unlawful               assembly on Dum Dum Road in front of the  Fire               Brigade Office and assaulted Shri Pranab  Bose               of P-18 Matijheel Avenue and you snatched away               a fountain pen worth Rs. 10 from his pocket.               (vi)  That on 18-3-68 at 19.30 hrs., you  with               your  associates closely followed  Sm.   Sipra               Kundu  (18) from Satgachi crossing on  Jessore               Road  and  uttered indecent  language  towards               her,  as a result of which she  got  terrified               and ran away to save her modesty." Ground  No.  11  is to the effect that as a  result  of  the petitioner’s   nefarious  activities  prejudicial   to   the maintenance of public order he has become a nuisance to  the society  and there have been disturbances and  confusion  in the lives of peaceful citizens of Dum Dum police station and the inhabitants thereof are in constant dread of disturbance of public order. We  do not consider that the above grounds are  relevant  to public order and if some of the grounds which are given  are irrelevant  the order of detention cannot be upheld  because the court cannot predicate what the subjective  satisfaction of  the authority would have been on the exclusion of  those reasons; vide Dwarka 140 Das  Bhatia  v.  The State of Jammu &  Kashmir(1),  and  the recent decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v.  State of West Bengal (2) . There the order of detention is  hereby

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

set aside. Petitioner No. 3 Panchu (Gopal Mondal).-This petitioner  was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24  Parganas dated March 23, 1968 made in exercise of the power conferred by s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that the detention  was necessary  with a view to preventing him from acting in  any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies  essential to  the community.  He was supplied with the grounds and  he made  a representation.  It was sent to the  Advisory  Board which,,  after hearing him and considering all the  material placed  before  it, expressed,’ its opinion that  there  was sufficient cause for his detention.  The Government of  West Bengal confirmed the detention order on July 17, 1968. We  have perused the grounds of detention and we  find  that most  of  them relate to matters for which  penal  or  other action  could  be taken under the  relevant  statutes.   For instance ground No. 1(ii) is as follows :               "That on 12-1-68 at 11.30 hrs. you were  found               operating  your  husking  machine  at  puraton               Bongaon and on demand by S.I.S. Chatterjee  of               S.E.B. (7) you could not produce the requisite               license or permit.               That though you were prosecuted for  operating               your  husking machine on 12-1-68, you  carried               on further operation with it as it was left on               your  bond of production, violating again  the               provisions  of  West  Bengal  Husking  Machine               (Control of Operation) Amendment Order 1967." The fact that the petitioner could not produce the requisite licence  or  permit can hardly be regarded as  relevant  for detention  on  the ground of activities prejudicial  to  the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. For  the aforesaid reasons this petitioner is also  entitled to be released. Petitioner  No.  5 (Debendra Nath Das)-This  petitioner  was detained by an order dated May 9, 1968 made by the  District Magistrate  24  Parganas  under S. 3(2)  of  the  Act.   His detention  was considered necessary for preventing him  from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order  His representation was sent to  the  Advisory Board  which, after hearing him personally and,  considering all  the  materials,  expressed an opinion  that  there  was sufficient  cause  for  the  petitioner’s  detention.    His detention was confirmed by the Government of West (1) [1956] S.C.R.945. (2) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.                             141 Bengal  by  an order dated July 17, 1968.   The  grounds  of detention  have  been  considered by us and we  are  of  the opinion  that they relate mainly to the question of law  and order and are not relevant to public order.  Moreover  there are allegations of offences under the Indian Penal Code  for which  prosecution could be launched.  As has been  observed in Pushkar Mukherjee & I Ors. v. State of West Bengal(1) the contravention of any law always affects order but before  it can  be  said  to affect public order  it  must  affect  the community or the public at large.  A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily  sufficient for action under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public  order can alone justify detention under  that  head. Ground  No.  1 (viii) which is typical may  be  specifically mentioned:               "That  on 26-2-68 at about 09.00 hrs. you  and               your  associates stabbed  Constable  Bhupendra               Nath Chakraborty of Gouripur T.O.P. under  Dum

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

             Dum  P.S. near Birati Railway  Level  Crossing               gate and stole away his wrist watch." We  are  satisfied that the petitioner could not  have  been detained  on  the  grounds  which are  before  us.   He  is, therefore, entitled to be released. Petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb).-He was detained by an  order dated  May 27, 1968 of the District Magistrate  24  Parganas under s. 3(2) on the ground that his detention was necessary for  preventing him from acting in a manner  prejudicial  to the  maintenance  of  public order.   He  was  supplied  the grounds  on which he made a representation to  the  Advisory Board  which heard him personally and after considering  all the  material  an  opinion  was  expressed  that  there  was sufficient cause for his detention.  The Government of  West Bengal confirmed the detention order on August 21, 1968. We have perused the grounds for the petitioners’  detention. They relate mostly to the question of law and order and  are not  relevant to public order.  Consequently the  petitioner is entitled to be released. Petitioner  No. 6 (Anil Das).  This petitioner was  detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Howrah dated May 18, 1968  made  under s. 3(2) of the Act,  the  detention  being considered necessary in order to prevent him from acting  in any  manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order. The  representation made by the petitioner was forwarded  to the Advisory Board which considered all the material  before it and was of the opinion (1)  [1969]2 S.C.R. 635. 142 that  sufficient cause for his detention existed.   On  July 29, 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention. Most  of the grounds are not at all relevant to  maintenance of  public  order.  Ground No. 1 (a) is that on  August  12, 1966  at about 10.00 hrs.  "you being drunk demanded  Rs.  2 from  Shri Santi Das......... near the betel shop of  Shalta Lal...... and threatened him with murder when he refused  to pay you the said money" We  are satisfied that the petitioner’s detention cannot  be upheld and it is hereby set aside. Petitioner  No.  10 (Dilip Kr.  Chakraborty @  Konkan)  This petitioner  was  detained by -an order dated June  13,  1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under S. 3(2) of the  Act on the ground that his detention was  necessary  in order  to prevent him from acting in any manner  prejudicial to  the  maintenance of public order.  One of  the  grounds, namely, 1 (ii) is .                "That on 13-3-67 you with your associate Debu               Biswas  assaulted  one Paresh  Nath  Koley  of               Ghosepara with fists and blows". Such  a  ground  cannot possibly relate or  be  relevant  to public  order.  In view of our previous decisions  mentioned before we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to  be released.  It may be mentioned that  this  petitioner had  also  filed a petition under Art. 226 in  the  Calcutta High  Court but his counsel has undertaken to withdraw  that petition. Petitioner No. 12 (Ashoka Kumar Mukherjee).  This petitioner was  detained  by the order of the District  Magistrate,  24 Parganas, dated May 25, 1968 made under S. 3(2) of the  Act; the  reason  for  his  detention  being  the  prevention  of activities  prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order. The   grounds   were  supplied  to  him  and   he   made   a representation  which was considered by the  Advisory  Board which, after giving a personal hearing, expressed an opinion that his detention was justified.  The Government  confirmed

5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

the’original order of detention on August 8, 1968.  We  have examined the grounds and they suffer from the same infirmity as  in the case of petitioner No. 7 (Abdul  Waheb).   Ground No. 1 (i) may be reproduced :               "That    on   3-6-67,   you   assaulted    one               Nabalchandra Saha a hawker, with knife." This petitioner is also entitled to be released.  Petitioner No. 13 (Ram Kamal Dhar @ Leda) This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968 passed  by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under S.  3 (2)  of  the  Act  on the  ground  that  his  detention  was necessary with a view                             143 to preventing him from acting. in any manner prejudicial  to the maintenance of public order.  The grounds of  detention. disclose  the same infirmities which are to be found in  the case of petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb) and Petitioner No. 10 (Dilip  Chakraborty  @ (Konkan).  For instance  one  of  the grounds, No. 3 is in these terms :               "On 1-5-68 at about 12.35 hrs. you along  with               your two associates being armed with  daggers,               snatched away a wrist watch worth Rs. 130 from               the  person  of the Kulak Chandra  Sarkar  S/o               Late Sahadeb Sarkar of Madhab Nibas Colony, P.               S.  Titagarh, Dist. 24 Parganas near  Dum  Dum               South  home  signal  at the  point  of  dagger               causing bleeding injury.               You were arrested with property red handed." Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released. Petitioner  No.  14  (Gopal  Show).   This  petitioner   was detained  by  an  order  dated July 11;  1968  made  by  the District Magistrate Howrah on the ground that his  detention was necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in  any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.   The grounds   were  supplied  to  him,  on  which  he   made   a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board by which  he was also personally heard.  On the report  of  the Advisory  Board  that  there was sufficient  cause  for  his detention the original order was confirmed by the Government of  West  Bengal on October 7, 1968.  This case  falls  very much in the same group as that of the petitioners Nos. 7, 10 and 12 above mentioned. According to one of the grounds the petitioner had, on Octo- ber  12, 1967 along with his associates committed  a  daring burglary  in  Howrah  Tobacco Store  by  breaking  open  6/7 padlocks  and removed Cigarette cases worth Rs. 10,000.   He is thus entitled to be released. Petitioner No. 16 (Makhan Lal Saha).  This petitioner  was., detained  by  an  order dated March 23,  1968  made  by  the District Magistrate 24, Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the  Act on  the ground that his detention was necessary with a  view to  preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial  to the maintenance of public order.  The grounds were  supplied to  him on which he made a representation which was sent  to the  Advisory  Board.   After  hearing  him  personally  and considering  all the materials, the Advisory Board  reported that   there  was  sufficient  cause  for   his   detention. Thereupon  the  Government confirmed the original  order  of detention on July 29, 1968.  An examination of the " grounds shows that they relate mostly and are relevant to the head " maintenance  of  supplies  and  services  essential  to  the community". 144 For instance ground No. 1 (i) is that on March 28, 1968  the petitioner  together with his associate committed  theft  of

6

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

over-head  traction wires including contact wire  disrupting the train services in Bongaon Section for more than 7 hours. The  grounds  may have been relevant to the other  head  but none  of  them  appears to be relevant  to  "maintenance  of public  order".   It is somewhat surprising  and  altogether incomprehensible  how  any District Magistrate or  even  the Government  could have missed seeing that the ,detention  of this  petitioner  might have been justified under  the  head "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the  com- munity"   but  not  the  "maintenance  of   public   order". Therefore  the detention order cannot be sustained and  must be set aside. Petitioner  No.  17 (Sk.  Yunus Ali).  This  petitioner  was detained  by  an  order made  by  the  District  Magistrate, Howrah,  on  March 7, 1968 under s. 3(2) of the Act  on  the ground  that  his  detention was necessary with  a  view  to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance  of public order.  He was supplied  the  grounds and  he  made a representation which was considered  by  the Advisory  Board.  The Board heard him personally and made  a report  that there was sufficient cause for  his  detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on July 3, 1968.  The grounds suffer from the same infirmity as in  the  cases of petitioners Nos. 7 and 10.   For  instance ground No. 1 (b) is :               "That on 12-3-67 at about 06-00 hrs., you  and               your   associates  showed  ugly  gesture   and               posture to some women vendors of vegetables in               platform  no. 6 of Uluberia Rly.  Station  and               started  whistling  in mouth on  seeing  those               women.   RPF  head Rakshak K.  C.  Chandra  of               Santragachi  Crime  Branch  objected  to  such               indecent  behaviour towards women by  you  all               when  Shri  Chandra was  physically  assaulted               with slaps by you and was threatened with dire               consequences by you and your associates." The  detention  of this petitioner cannot be upheld  and  is hereby set aside. Petitioner  No.  18  (Gaddu  Ghosh).   This  petitioner  was detained  by  an order of the  District  Magistrate,  Malda, dated  June  3, 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act  with  a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order.   The  grounds  were supplied  to  him  and he made a  representation  which  was considered  by the Advisory Board.  The Board after  hearing him personally and considering all the materials before  it, expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.    Thereupon  the  Government  of   West   Bengal ,confirmed the order of his detention.  Practically all  the grounds                             145 do not appear to be relevant to public order.  Ground No.  2 (a) is typical and may be reproduced :               "That  on the midnight of 21-7-67  you  grazed               your 17 heads of cattle on maize plants in the               land  of  Amal Roy of Kbasbari P.  S.  English               Bazar.   You threatened Amal Roy with  further               mischief for impounding your cattle." His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside. Petitioner No. 19 (Ratanlal Kairi).  This petitioner was de- tained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24  Parganas, dated  April  19,  1968;  his  detention  being   considered necessary  in  order to preventing him from  acting  in  any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.   His representation  was  referred to the  Advisory  Board  which

7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

considered it along with the other material and expressed an opinion  that there was sufficient cause for his  detention. The Government made an order on July 10, 1968 confirming the order of detention.  The grounds have been perused by us and they  appear  to  be relevant.   The  activities  which  are mentioned  therein show that they are of such a nature  that they relate to public order. We would therefore decline the prayer for setting aside  the order of detention. Petitioner  No. 20 (Farid Ali Naskar).  This petitioner  was detained  by  the  order of  the  District  Magistrate,  24, Parganas, dated July 30, 1968 Made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on  the ground that it was necessary to detain him in  order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance of public order.  His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which considered it along with the  other materials  but  made a report against him.   The  Government thereupon confirmed the order of detention on September  19, 1968.  We have seen the grounds of detention and they appear to  relate mostly to removal of rice bags in  a  clandestine manner.   These activities might have some relevance to  the head "maintenance of supplies and services essential to  the community  but  by  no  stretch of  reasoning  can  they  be regarded as relevant to public order. The detention of the petitioner therefore is set aside. Petitioner  No.  23  (Sk.   Makbul).   The  petitioner   was detained  by  the  order dated March 8,  1968  made  by  the District  Magistrate, Howrah, under s. 3 (2) of the  Act  on the  ground that his detention was necessary with a view  to preventing  him from acting in a manner prejudicial  to  the maintenance  of public order.  On receiving the  grounds  of his  detention,  he made a representation  to  the  Advisory Board which, after considering the same and giving 146 him  a personal hearing, reported that there was  sufficient cause  for his detention.  Thereupon the Government of  West Bengal confirmed the detention order.  The grounds  disclose the same infirmity as in other cases e.g. Petitioner Nos.  7 and 10.  Ground No. 1 (a) is typical and may be reproduced :               "That  on 10-2-67 at about 21.50 hrs. you  and               your associates threatened R.P.F. Head Rakshak               Prakash  Chandra  Mitra of  CID  Kharagpur  at               Andul Railway Station with stabbing when  Shri               Mitra  objected  to your passing  of  indecent               remarks at a lady passenger." Consequently the detention order is set aside. Petitioner No. 25 (Uday Chand Namadas).  This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate  Jalpaiguri, dated the 11 th July 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act  on the  ground  that his detention was necessary  in  order  to prevent  him  from acting in any manner prejudicial  to  the maintenance  of public order.  On receiving the  grounds  he made  a representation which was considered by the  Advisory Board.   The  Board  gave  a  personal  hearing  and   after considering  all  the  materials  reported  that  there  was sufficient   cause   for  his  detention.    Thereupon   the Government  of  West Bengal confirmed the  detention  order. Ground No. 1 is altogether vague and may be reproduced :-               "That you have been for a long time engaged in               anti-social, illegal and high-handed  criminal               activities   and   in  the  course   of   such               activities  you  have on  different  occasions               held out threats to different persons and that               you have associated yourself with  anti-social               elements.  Whenever the peace-loving  citizens

8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

             questioned   your  bona  fide  and   protested               against  your  activities  and  whenever  they               offered   themselves  as  witnesses  to   your               activities  you threatened to burn down  their               houses." The detention of this petitioner cannot be sustained because of the existence, of the above ground which is so vague that the   petitioner   could   not  possibly   have   made   any representation  with regard to it.  In view of our  previous decisions referred to his detention is set aside. Petitioner  No. 26. (Abdul Bari Karikar).   This  petitioner was  detained by the order made by the District  Magistrate, Murshidabad,  on July 6, 1968 under S. 3 (2) of the  Act  on the  ground  that the detention was necessary  in  order  to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order.   On  receiving  the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which was  considered by it.  The Board, after giving  a  personal hearing  and  considering  all the  materials  expressed  an opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention. 147 The  Government  of  West  Bengal  confirmed  the  order  of detention  on September 12, 1968.  We have read the  grounds and we consider that some of them are so irrelevant that  it is  incomprehensible how any order of detention  could  have been made on those grounds.  For instance ground No. 1 is               "On 26-8-65 you were committed to trial before               the  court  under section 406  of  the  Indian               Penal   Code  on  a  charge   of   deceitfully               misappropriating the cycle belonging to  Bishu               Khan of village Chonya Pathan Para."               Ground  No. 4 is equally irrelevant.   It  has               been stated that               "On 19-5-67 at about 7.30 a.m. you  threatened               Karim  Sheikh  of village Chonya  Pathan  Para               with  assault  as  he had  instituted  a  case               against you." If  such grounds can be considered to be relevant to  public order it would be open to the authorities to detain citizens without  a  trial  for  such  petty  matters  as  have  been mentioned  in these grounds.  Moreover the first  ground  is also  not reasonably proximate in time.  It relates to  some incident  which  happened  in  the  year  1965  whereas  the detention order was made on July 6, 1968.  The detention  of the  petitioner cannot possibly be upheld and is hereby  set aside. Petitioner No. 27 (Nagendra Nath Saha).  This petitioner was detained  by  an  order dated April 19,  1968  made  by  the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the Act; the grounds of detention being the prevention of  activities prejudicial   to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.    On receiving  the  grounds  he made  a  representation  to  the Advisory  Board  which reported that  there  was  sufficient cause for his detention.  On July 10, 1968 the Government of West  Bengal  confirmed  the detention order.   Two  of  the grounds may be reproduced :-               "2 (c) That your complicity transpired  during               investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 181 dt.               26-3-65 u/s 379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably               suspended in the case.               (d)   That  your complicity transpired  during               investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 180 dt.               26-3-65 u/s 379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably               suspected in the case." These cannot possibly have any relevance to "maintenance  of

9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

public  order", the proper implications of which  expression have  been  fully discussed in the decisions of  this  Court including  the recent decision in Pushkar Mookherjee &  Ors. v. The State of 148 West Bengal(1).  The petitioner’s detention cannot therefore be upheld and it is hereby set aside : Petitioner  No. 28 (Habibullah Khan).  This  petitioner  was :detained  by an order dated February 17, 1968 made  by  the District  Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under S. 3(2) of the  Act in   order  to  prevent  him  from  acting  in  any   manner prejudicial   to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.    On receiving  the  grounds  he made  a  representation  to  the Advisory  Board which expressed an opinion in favour of  his detention.   The  Government of West  Bengal  confirmed  the detention on April 17, 1968. We have perused the grounds of detention which do not relate to  public order; for instance one of the grounds If iv)  is to the following effect :                "that on 27-12-67 at about 03.30 hrs’ you and               your associates committed theft of  signalling               and telecommunication materials from  location               box No. L-60 worth about Rs. 3,000."                His detention is consequently set aside. Petitioner No. 29. (Naba Kumar Ghosh).  This petitioner  was detained  by  an  order  of  the  District  Magistrate,   24 Parganas, dated July 13, 1968 made under S. 3(2) of the  Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in   order  to  prevent  him  from  acting  in  any   manner prejudicial   to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.    Ms representation  was considered by the Advisory  Board  which made  a representation that there was sufficient  cause  for his  detention.  On September 19, 1968 the  detention  order ,was  confirmed by the Government.  Some of the grounds  are not  at  all relevant to maintenance of  public  order;  for instance ground No. 1 (ii) is               "That  on 1-3-68 at about 02.00 hrs., you  and               your  associate Ram Nehore Kouri were seen  to               conceal  your presence by the side of a  wagon               standing at Chitpur yard with a view to commit               theft from standing wagons.  Being chased, you               and  your associate,,,, were arrested  by  the               (1) on duty RPF staff and prosecuted." The detention of the petitioner cannot be upheld and is  set aside. Petitioner  No. 30 (Abdul Main Mirza).  This petitioner  was detained  by the order of the District  Magistrate,  Howrah, dated  March  7, 1968 on the ground that his  detention  was necessary in order to prevent him from -acting in any manner prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.    His representation  was considered by the Advisory  Board  which reported that there was sufficient ,cause for his detention. On  June  12, 1968 the Government  confirmed  the  detention order.  Most of the grounds are not relevant (1)  [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.                             149 to the maintenance of public order.  For instance ground No. 1 (a), is :               "That  on 24-2-67 at about 21.26 hrs. you  and               your  associates  abused C.I.B.  Head  Rakshak               3646 Hara Kumar Mukherjee of Shalimar and also               threatened him with dire consequences at Andul               Rly.  Station when Shri Mukherjee objected  to               the  passing  of indecent remarks  at  a  lady               passenger   of   358   Dn.    (Midnapur-Howrah

10

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

             Passenger) train." The  detention  of this petitioner cannot be upheld  and  is hereby set aside. Petitioner No. 31 (Nripen Chakraborty).  This petitioner was detained  by  an order made by the District  Magistrate,  24 Parganas  on April 4, 1968 on the ground that his  detention was  necessary  in  order to prevent him from  acting  in  a manner prejudicial to public order.  His representation  was sent  to  the Advisory Board which on considering  the  same with other material reported that there was sufficient cause for  the  detention.  The detention order  was  consequently confirmed  by the Government on June 12, 1968.  Most of  the grounds  do  not appear to be relevant  to  maintenance,  of public, order.  Ground No. (ii) may be reproduced :-               "That on 7-10-66 you pulled the alarm chain of               the  train at Bongaon Ranaghat  Section  while               you were bringing rice for sale from  Ranaghat               to  Bongaon,  without having booked  them  and               without having any ticket." His  detention cannot therefore be upheld and it  is  hereby set aside. Petitioner No. 33 (Nanda Kishore Rabi Das).  This petitioner was  detained by an order dated April 25, 1968 made  by  the District Magistrate 24, Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act on the  ground that his detention was necessary for  preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of  public order.  He made a representation to the  Advisory Board  which  after considering all the  materials  reported that  there  was sufficient cause for  his  detention.   The detention order was consequently confirmed by the Government of  West Bengal on July 2, 1968.  The grounds for  detention in  the  case of this petitioner appear to  be  relevant  to maintenance of public order.  He has apparently been  acting with a large number of associates and committing acts  which could  have  led  to  disturbance  of  public  order.    His detention is therefore upheld. Petitioner No. 34 (Samiron Sarkar).  This petitioner was de- tained by an order dated August 2, 1968 made by the District Magistrate  24,  Parganas under s. 3(2) of the  Act  on  the ground that his detention was necessary to prevent him  from acting in any 150 manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.   His representation  was  forwarded to the Advisory  Board  which reported that there was sufficient cause for his  detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on October 9, 1968.  His case is similar to that of many others inasmuch  as  most of the grounds are not  relevant  to  the maintenance of public order.  By way of example ground No. 1 (ii) is reproduced               "That on 30-9-67 at about 21.00 hrs. you  with               your associates Amal Karali, Bapu, Tripti  and               others forced Shri Dulal Chandra Kundu,  Abdul               Jabbar  and  Gobinda  Das  Roy  Choudhury   of               Barisha  to  go  to the shop  of  Nilan  Maity               inside Sakher Bazar and you forcibly took away               Rs.  65  from the pocket of  Gobinda  Das  Roy               Choudhury,  one wrist watch, a gold  ring  and               cash  Rs. 18 from Abdul Jabbar and Rs. 70  and               20  packets of cigarettes from  Dulal  Chandra               Kundu."               His  detention  cannot be upheld  and  is  set               aside. Petitioner No. 35 (Ashwini Kumar Karmakar).  This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968 of the District

11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

Magistrate  24 Parganas made under s. 3(2) of the  Act,  the detention being considered necessary with a view to  prevent the  petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial  to  the maintenance of public order.  His representation was sent to the   Advisory  Board  which,  after  considering  all   the materials, reported that there was sufficient cause for  his detention.  Thereupon the Government confirmed the order  of detention on September 19, 1968.  The activities which  have been  alleged  in the grounds are again of  at  type,  which cannot be relevant to public order.  For instance ground No. 1 (c) which is in these terms :               "That  on 6-10-67 at about 06.30 hrs. you  and               your associates were seen to remove sugar bags               from  a sealed wagon of a goods train  and  to               despatch  the same by hand pulling  car  while               the train stopped at Bagmari Rly.  Bridge  for               red signal." His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside. Petitioner No. 36 (Sri Panchanan Das).  The District  Magis- trate,  24  Parganas,  made an order  dated  June  13,  1968 directing  under s. 3(2) of the Act  petitioner’s  detention with  a  view to preventing him from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial  to  the  maintenance  of  public  order.    His representation  was sent to the Advisory Board which,  after considering  all  the  materials, reported  that  there  was sufficient  cause  for his detention.   Thereupon  the  Gov- ernment  confirmed the detention order on August  29,  1968. Most  of  the  grounds  are  not  at  all  relevant  to  the maintenance of public ,order; see for instance ground No.  1 (c) which is in these terms : 151               "That  on 18-2-68 at about 11.30 a.m. you  and               your associates were found to remove rice from               a  running Railway wagon by breaking  seal  of               the  wagon  door  at  Bagmari  Rly.  pool  and               overhead Chitpur Bridge."               His detention cannot be upheld. Petitioner  No. 37 (Indrajit Debnath).  This petitioner  was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24  Parganas dated  May  23, 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act  on  the ground  that  his  detention was necessary with  a  view  to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance   of  public  order.   His  representation   was considered  by  the  Advisory Board  along  with  the  other materials.   The  Board reported that there  was  sufficient cause for his detention.  Thereupon the Government confirmed the  order  of  detention on August 1, 1968.   Most  of  the grounds  contain allegations of theft of  overhead  traction wire.   They cannot possibly be relevant to  maintenance  of public  order.  The detention order cannot be upheld and  is hereby set aside. Petitioner  No.  38. (Surjit Singh).   This  petitioner  was detained  by  the  order  of  the  District  Magistrate,  24 Parganas  under  s. 3 (2) of the Act on April 4,  1968;  the detention  being  considerd necessary to  prevent  him  from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order.   His representation was  considered  by  the Advisory Board along with the other materials and the  Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his  detention. Thereupon  the Government confirmed the detention  order  on June  29, 1968.  Some of the grounds cannot possibly  relate to  maintenance of public order.  Ground No. 1 (viii) is  in these terms :               "That on 16-2-68 you fled away from the R.  G.               Kar   Hospital  while  you   were   undergoing

12

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

             treatment under police guard." His  detention consequently cannot be upheld and  is  hereby set aside. Petitioner No. 39 (Badal Pal).  This petitioner was detained by  an  order,  dated July 30, 1968  made  by  the  District Magistrate  24  Parganas  under  s. 3(2)  of  the  Act,  his detention  being  considered necessary to prevent  him  from acting  in  any  manner prejudicial to  the  maintenance  of public  order.   His representation was  considered  by  the Advisory  Board  with other materials  which  reported  that there was sufficient cause for his detention.  Thereupon the Government  confirmed the order of detention.  Some  of  the grounds  have absolutely no relevance to the maintenance  of public order.  See for instance grounds Nos.  1 (d), (e) and (f). His detention cannot, therefore, be upheld and is set aside. 152 Petitioner No. 40 (Sona Karmakar) . This petitioner was  de- tained by an order of the District Magistrate dated July 30, 1968  made under S. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that  his detention  was necessary for preventing him from  acting  in any  manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order. His representation was considered by the Advisory Board with the  other materials but the Board reported that  there  was sufficient  cause for his detention.  On September 18,  1968 the  Government confirmed the order of detention.   Some  of the  grounds  cannot  possibly be regarded  as  relevant  to maintenance  of  public order.  See grounds Nos. 1  (b)  and (c). His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside. Petitioner No. 42 (Jaganath Goila).  This petitioner was de- tained by an order of the District Magistrate,, 24  Parganas made  under  s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that  it  was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from  acting in  any  manner  prejudicial to the  maintenance  of  public order.   His representation was considered by  the  Advisory Board together with the other materials.  The Board reported that  there  was  sufficient cause for  his  detention.   On October  7,  1968  the detention  order  was  confirmed.   A perusal  of the grounds shows that most of the  grounds  are not  relevant  to maintenance of public order  and  in  this connection reference may be made to ground Nos.  1 (ii)  and (iii). The  detention  of  this petitioner  cannot,  therefore,  be upheld and is hereby set aside.      Petitioner  No. 43 (Shyamal Pal).  This petitioner  was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas made unders.   3  (2) of the Act on the ground that  it  was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from  acting in  any  manner  prejudicial to the  maintenance  of  public order.  On receiving the grounds of detention the petitioner made  a representation which was considered by the  Advisory Board together with the other materials.  The Board reported that  there was sufficient cause for his detention.  On  May 17, 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention. We have examined the grounds of detention.  Most of them  do not  relate  to  or are relevant to  maintenance  of  public order.   The  activities  mentioned  cover  acts  of  theft, robbery etc. but they cannot be considered relevant for  the purpose of public order, in view of our previous  decisions. The detention is consequently set aside. Petitioner No. 44 (Suvranghshu Mitra).  This petitioner  was detained  by an order dated April 20, 1968 of  the  District Magis-                             153

13

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

trate,  24 Parganas, made under s. 3 (2) of the Act  on  the ground  that it was necessary to detain him with a  view  to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance   of  public  order.   His  representation   was forwarded  to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion  that there was sufficient cause for his detention.  Thereupon the Government  of West Bengal confirmed the order of  detention on  June  28,  1968.   Some  of  the  ,grounds  are   wholly irrelevant  to  maintenance of public order.   For  instance ground No. 1 (i) is               "That  on  11-10-67 at about  11.45  hrs.  you               assaulted  Shri  Narayanchandra  Das  of   6A,               Baikuntha  Ghose Road, Calcutta-42 with  fists               and blows." He is therefore entitled to be released. Petitioner  No. 45. (Madan Mohan Mandal).   This  petitioner was  detained  by an order of the  District  Magistrate,  24 Parganas,  dated January 16, 1968 on the ground that it  was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from -acting in  any  manner  prejudicial to the  maintenance  of  public order.   His representation was considered by  the  Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient  cause for his detention.  Thereupon the Government of West  Bengal confirmed  the order of detention on May 1, 1968.   Some  of the  grounds  of detention do not appear to be  relevant  to maintenance of public order.  See for instance ground No.  1 (iv). Consequently he is entitled to be released. Petitioner No. 46. (Rangalal Debnath).  This petitioner  was detained  by  an order dated March 16, 1968  passed  by  the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3 (2) of the  Act on  the ground that it was necessary to detain him in  order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance of public order. On  receiving  the grounds he made a representation  to  the Advisory  Board  which  gave  an  opinion  that  there   was sufficient cause for his detention.  The Government of  West Bengal  confirmed  the order of detention on June  10  1968. His  case  is  similar to others inasmuch  as  most  of  the grounds are not relevant to the maintenance of public order. See for instance ground No, 1 (iv). The detention of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside. G.C.                      Petitions allowed. M7 Sup.  CI/69-11 154