http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: SHYAMAL MONDAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/09/1971

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2384            1972 SCR  (1) 517  1971 SCC  (2) 672

ACT: West  Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act,  19  of 1970, s. 3(1)--Order under-Validity-Activities mentioned  in s.  3(2) are by definition prejudicial to security of  State as well as to public order.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner was detained under an order dated  March  2, 1971  passed  by the District Magistrate,  24-Pargana,  West Bengal, under sub-s. (i) read with sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the West  Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities)  Act,  1970. The order stated that the District Magistrate was  satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained with  a view to prevent him from acting in any  manner  pre- judicial to the security of the State or the maintenance  of public  order  as provided in s. 3(1).  In  the  grounds  of detention supplied to the petitioner    three  incidents  of violence at railway stations in which the petitioner   was alleged  to have participated and used explosives were  men- tioned.   In his representations against being detained  the petitioner  did  not  allege  any  mala  fides  against  the administration  but  only denied that he took  part  in  the violent activities.  In ’support of the writ petition  under Art.  32 of the Constitution challenging  the order  of  its detention  it  was  urged  that  while  the  impugned  order mentioned  his  activities as being  prejudicial  to  public order as well as security of the State, the instances  given in  the grounds of detention only mentioned activities  pre- judicial to public order.  The detaining authority had  thus taken  into  account extraneous and  irrelevant  matters  in passing the order of detention.’ According to the  appellant it  is only matters referred to in sub-c. (i) of c1. (a)  of s.  3(2)  of  the Act which will relate  to  the  activities adversely  affecting the security of the State, and none  of these matters had been mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner.  HELD  :  The contention of the petitioner that it  is  only sub-cl.  (1) of cl. (a) of s. 3(2) which deals with  matters adversely affecting the  security of the State could not  be accepted.In  fact  that  very sub-  clause  refers  to  the matters herein as affectingthe  security of the State  or the maintenance of public order. Thereforein  this   case

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

the grounds    of  detention could not be held to  be  vague norcould  the order of detention be held to be invalid  on the ground thatthe  petitioner must have been  detained only to prevent him from actingin any manner prejudicial to  the maintenance of public order and not to the  security of the State.  In particular under cl. (d) of s. 2 a  person will  be considered to be acting in a manner prejudicial  to the  security  of  the State or the  maintenance  of  public order,  if  he  commits  any  offence  under  the  Explosive Substances  Act, 1908.  The various incidents  mentioned  in the grounds of detention may also come under cl. (b) of sub- s.  ’(2) of s. 3. Further the said grounds clearly bring the activities  of  the petitioner under s. 3 of  the  Explosive Substances Act. [523 H-524 E] Accordingly the detention of the petitioner must be held  to be valid and the petition under Art. 32 must be dismissed.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 205 of 1971. Petition  under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India  for  a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. 518 V.   Mayakrishnan, for the petitioner. S.   P.  Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu,  for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam,   J  This  petition  under  Art.  32  of   the Constitution  challenges  the validity of  the  order  dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1)  read  with sub-section( 3) of S. 3 of the  West  Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX  of 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), directing  the detention of the petitioner. The  impugned order states that the District Magistrate  was satisfied  that it was necessary that the petitioner  should be  detained with a view to prevent him from acting  in  any manner  prejudicial  to  the security of the  State  or  the maintenance  of public order as provided by S. 3(1)  of  the Act. According  to  the  affidavit  in  reply  of  the   District Magistrate,  he  reported under S. 3 (4) of the Act  to  the State Government On March 3, 1971 regarding the fact of  his having  passed  the  order of detention  together  with  the grounds  of  detention and all other. particulars  having  a bearing  on  the  name.   It is  further  stated  that  the. petitioner  was arrested on March 5, 1971 and was served  on the- same day with the order of detention together with the, grounds for passing the order of detention.  The  petitioner was   also   informed  that  he  is  entitled  to   make   a representation to the State Government against the order  of detention and that such representation is to be addressed to the   Assistant   Secretary   Home   (Special)   DEpartment, Government   of  West  Bengal  and  forwarded  through   the Superintendent  of Jail.  He was further informed  that  his case  will  be  placed under s. 10 of the  Act  before,  the Advisory Board within 30 days from the date of the order  of detention.   He  was also informed that under s. 11  of  the Act,  the; Advisory Board shall, if so desired by him,  hear him in person and that the petitioner must intimate the said desire  to be heard in the representations that he may  make to the State Government. The  State Government considered the report of the  District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

Magistrate  together with other materials placed  before  it and  approved, on March 11, 1971 as required by S. 3 (4)  of the  Act,  the  order of detention passed  by  the  District Magistrate. On the same day, as required,by S. 3(5) the State Government sent  the necessary report to the Central  Government.   The State  Government  on April 3, 1971 placed the case  of  the petitioner before the Advisory Board. 519 The petitioner sent two representations dated March 17,  and April  19, 1971 denying the allegations made in the  grounds for  passing the order of detention and pleaded that he  was innocent.  He has admitted in these representations that  he was  arrested  on  March  5,  1971.   In  neither  of  these representations  did the petitioner make a request  that  he should  be provided an opportunity of being heard in  person by  the Advisory Board.  The State Government  rejected  the representations of the petitioner, but forwarded them to the Advisory  Board  for being considered.  The  Advisory  Board after  considering the, materials placed before it  relating to  the detention of the petitioner including the  represen- tations  made by him on March 17, 1971 and April  19,  1971, submitted its report on May 11, 1971 to the State Government stating that it is of opinion that there is sufficient cause for  the detention of the petitioner.  The State  Government passed  an order on July 12, 1971 under S. 12(1) of the  Act confirming  the  order:  of detention dated  March  2,  1971 passed  by  the District Magistrate and  directed  that  the petitioner’s   detention   shall  be  continued   till   the expiration of twelve months from the date of his detention. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on  the ground  that he has never committed any offence nor  has  he been  involved in any illegal activities as alleged  in  the grounds  of  detention.   He has  further  stated  that  the various allegations mentioned against him are false and that he never participated in any of the incidents referred to in the grounds of detention.  The petitioner has further stated that he is innocent and that he has been illegally detained. It  Will  be noted from his averments in the  writ  petition that except denying that the allegations are false and  that he has never participated in any of those incidents referred to in the grounds of detention, he has not alleged any  mala fides  nor challenged the jurisdiction of the  officer  who, passed  the  order of detention or the  various  proceedings connected therewith. Under  S.  3  (1)  of  the Act,  *hat  is  required  is  the satisfaction  of  the  State  Government  or  the   relevant District Magistrate, as the case may be, of the necessity to detain a person with a view to prevent him from acting in  a manner  prejudicial  to  the security of the  State  or  the maintenance  of  public order.  In the  order  of  detention dated March 2, 1971, the District Magistrate has stated that he was satisfied that with a view to prevent the  petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain the petitioner and that the order was being passed in exercise of the powers conferred on the District  Magistrate by  sub-section (1) read with subsection (3) of S. 3 of  the Act.  In the grounds of detention 520           . furnished to the petitioner on March 5, 1971 along with  the order  dated  March 2, 1971 the following  particulars  have been given:               "(1) That, on 26-1-71 between 11.00 and  12.31               hours,  you along with your  associates  being

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             armed with bombs, ballasts, pipe guns,  lathis               etc.,  assembled at Piali Railway Station  and               created   terror  among  the   passengers   by               charging   bombs   and   showering    ballasts               indiscriminately   and   also   moving    from               compartment  to compartment of train Nos.   SC               193 UP and SC 195 UP in search of your rivals,               shouting  that  "if I get the Rascal,  I  will               kill  them" and in doing so you caused  injury               to  some  innocent passengers  and  broke  the               glass panes of driver’s cab of SC 195 Up.  You               created   disturbance  of  the  public   order               thereby.               (2)That,  on 2-2-71 at about  17.39  hours,               you  along with your associates,  being  armed               with   bombs,  daggers  etc.,   attacked   and               assaulted the guard of train No. SC 199 Up  at               Champahati  Railway Station and  also  created               terror  among  the passengers  by  charging  a               bomb.  You created disturbance of  the  public               order thereby.               (3)   That on 9-2-71 at about 13.15 hours  you               and your associates charged bombs and ballasts               on  duty  Police  party  at  Jadavpur  Railway               Station  as  they  seized  10  bags  of   rice               weighing  about  3 quintals from  SC  195  Up,               while  you  were  taking  the  said  stock  to               Calcutta  rationing area illegally  by  train.               Your  attack grew so violent that  the  Police               party  had  to  open fire upon  you  in  self-               defence.   Your  violent  activities   created               serious  panic  in the Station  area  and  the               public order was disturbed thereby." In the two representations-dated March 17 and April 19, 1971 made to the State Government, the petitioner after referring to the fact that he was arrested on March 5, 1971 has denied that  he  was  involved  in any  of  the  types  of  violent activities referred to in the grounds for detention.  He has further  stated that he is leading a very honest life  doing the work of mason and that the allegations made against  him are false. As we have already mentioned, the petitioner did not ask for an  opportunity  of. being heard,in person by  the  Advisory Board. He has not also alleged in these representations  and mala fides in passing the order of dention. The  District Magistrate who passed the order  of  detention has filed a counter-affidavit.  The District Magistrate  has stated  that  the petitioner is rice smuggler  operating  in Subarban Railway 521 trains  in Southern Section of Eastern Railway and  that  he along with his associates armed with bombs and other  deadly weapons  attacked  the passengers and the guard  of  railway trains and created terror by hurling bombs in Champahati and Piali  Railway  Stations.  The District  Magistrate  further proceeds  to  state  that the petitioner  was  detained  for acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the  State or  the maintenance of public order in the Jadavpur area  of the  district of 24 Parganas for his having taken a  leading and active part in violent activities.  It is further stated in   the  counter-affidavit  that  the  activities  of   the petitioner disturbed the public order and were so persistent and violent that he became a terror to the residents of  the locality  and the railway traveling public and that but  for his  detention he could not have been prevented from  acting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

in  a  manner prejudicial to the security of  the  State-,or maintenance of public order.  It is further stated that  the deponent  after receiving reliable information  relating  to the anti-social and prejudicial activities of the petitioner and  after  carefully considering these  materials,  he  was fully  satisfied  that the petitioner was  engaged  and  was indulging in activities which were prejudicial    to     the security  of the State or the maintenance of  public  order, and  that  his  detention was  essential.    On  being  thus satisfied, the      District  Magistrate proceeds  to  state that he bona fide passed the  order of detention on his  own satisfaction, judgment and reasoning. The  counter-affidavit then proceeds to state about the order  of      confirmation passed  by the State Government and other matters  resulting finally in the order passed by the Government on July  12, 1971.      It  may  be  pointed out that in  paragraph  6  of  the counter  affidavit it has been mentioned that  the  Advisory Board submitted     its  report  on  May  11,  1971   "after hearing the petitioner." This      statement  is   obviously wrong because the petitioner never asked for being heard  in person. The Advisory Board also does not say that        the petitioner  was heard in person. The counsel  appearing  for the  State has expressed his regret regarding this  mistaken averment made in the counter-affidavit. But that does not in any  manner  advance the case of the petitioner, as we  will presently show.      We   have  already  referred  to  the  fact  that   the petitioner  has     merely denied his being associated  with the incidents. referred to    in  the grounds of  detention. We are satisfied from the averments     made by the District Magistrate in the counter-affidavit, which   have  not  been further  controverted  by  the  petitioner  by  filing   any rejoinder  that the order of detention has been validly  and properly passed. Mr.   V. Mayakrishnan, Amicus Curiae, appearing   on  behalf of  the petitioner has urged that every one of  the  grounds has  referred  to the activities of  the  petitioner  having resulted in disturbance of 522 public order.  But the order of detention refers to the fact that  the  District  Magistrate was of  the  view  that  the petitioner should  be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order.  No ground showing as  to how any activity of the petitioner is prejudicial  to the security of the State justifying the order Of  detention has been furnished to the petitioner.  Therefore,  according to  the learned counsel, the order of detention is  illegal inasmuch  as  the petitioner has not been  informed  of  any grounds  as  to how his activities are  prejudicial  to  the security  of the State.  Inasmuch as both the  matters  have been  mentioned in the order of detention, it must  be  that the  detaining authority has taken into  account  extrenuous and  irrelevant matters in passing the order  of  detention. In particular, according to the learned counsel, it is  only the  matters referred to in sub-cl. (1) of cl. (a) of  s.  3 (2) of the Act that will relate to the activities  adversely affecting the security of the State.  None of those  matters have  been  mentioned  in  the  grounds  furnished  to   the petitioner.    Therefore,  it  is  not  clear  whether   the detaining   authority  passed  the  order  to  prevent   the petitioner  from  acting in any manner  prejudicial  to  the Security  of the State or for maintenance of  public  order. For  all  these, reasons, the counsel urged,  the  order  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

detention is illegal. Mr.  S.  P. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for  the  State drew our attention to the provisions contained in s. 3(2) of the  Act and pointed out that the various acts mentioned  in the grounds of detention come within the expressions "acting in  any manner prejudicial to the security of the  State  or the  maintenance of public order." In particular  he  relied upon cl. (d) of s. 2 and pointed out that the petitioner has committed  an offence under the Explosive,  Substances  Act, 1908, (Act No. 6 of 1908) and, therefore, his detention  was legal. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the  learned counsel for the petitioner.  As already mentioned, under  s. 3(1) of the Act, what is required is the satisfaction of the State Government or the relevant District Magistrate, as the case may be, of the necessity to detain a person with a view to  prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial  to  the security  of the State or the maintenance of  public  order. As  defined  by  sub-section (2) of  s.  3,  the  expression "acting  in  any manner prejudicial to the security  of  the State or the maintenance of public order means : lm15 "(a)using or instigating any person by words, either  spoken or  written,  or by signs or by visible  representations  or otherwise, to use, any lethal weapon-- (i)  to  promote  or  propagate any cause  or  ideology  the promotion or propagation of which affects 523 or is likely to affect, adversely the security of the  State or the maintenance of public order. or (ii)to  overthrow or to overawe the Government  established by law in India. Explanation-In  this clause, "lethal weapon" includes  fire- arms,  explosive  or corresive substances.  swords,  spears, daggers, bows and arrows; or (b)committing mischief, within the meaning of section  425 of the Indian Penal Code, by fire or any explosive substance on any property of Government or any local authority or  any corporation  owned  or  controlled  by  Government  or   any University or other educational institution or on any public building, where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order; or (c)causing  insult to the Indian National Flag or  to  any other  object of public veneration, whether  by  mutilating, damaging,  burning,  defiling, destroying or  otherwise,  or instigating any person to do so. Explanation-In  this clause, "object of  public  veneration" includes  any  portrait  or statute of  an  eminent  Indian, installed  in a public place as a mark of respect to him  or to his memory; or (d)committing,  or instigating any person to  commit,  any offence  punishable with death or imprisonment for  life  or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more  or any  offence  under  the Arms Act,  1959  or  the  Explosive Substances  Act, 1908, where the commission of such  offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order; or (e)in  the case of a person referred to in clause  (a)  to (f) of section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,  1898, committing  any offence punishable with  imprisonment  where the  commission  of such offence disturbs or  is  likely  to disturb, public order. It  will be seen that the Act itself furnishes a  dictionary meaning.  for the two expressions and a perusal of cls.  (a) to  (e)  clearly shows that any of the matters  referred  to therein  will be both " prejudicial to the security  of  the

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

State or the maintenance of public order". We  are not inclined to accept the contention on  behalf  of the petitioner that it is only sub-cl. (1) of cl. (a) of  S. 3(2) which 524 deals with the matters, which adversely affect the  security of  the ,State.  In fact that very sub-clause refers to  the ’matters mentioned therein as affecting the security of  the State  or  the maintenance of public order.   Therefore,  in this  case  the grounds of detention .cannot be held  to  be vague  nor can the order of detention be held to be  invalid on  the ground that the petitioner must have  been  detained only to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the  maintenance of public order and not to the security  of the  State.  In particular, under cl. (d) of s. 2, a  person will  be considered to be acting in a manner prejudicial  to the  security  of  the State or the  maintenance  of  public order,  if  he  commits  any  offence  under  the  Explosive Substances  Act, 1908.  The various incidents  mentioned  in the grounds of detention may also come under cl. (b) of sub- s.  (2) of S. 3 Section 3 of the Explosive  Substances  Act, 1908, is as follows :               "Sec. 3 : Any person who unlawfully and  mali-               ciously  causes by any explosive substance  an               explosion of a nature likely to endanger  life               or to cause serious injury to property  shall,               whether  any injury to person or property  has               been actually caused or not, be punished  with               transportation  for life or any shorter  term,               to   which   fine  may  be  added,   or   with               imprisonment  for a term which may  extend  to               ten years, to which fine may be added."’ The  various  grounds mentioned in the  order  of  detention clearly  bring the activities of the petitioner under  s.  3 quoted above. The  date  and  the  place as well  as  the  time  when  the incidents  occurred, and also the train numbers  which  were affected, as well as the association of the petitioner  with those  incidents,  have been fully given in the  grounds  of detention.   No  doubt  the names of the  persons,  who  are stated  to be his associates have not been given.   For  all the  above  reasons,  we are satisfied  that  the  order  of detention is valid. In  the  result,  rule  nisi is  discharged  and  this  writ petition dismissed. G.C.                      Petition dismissed. 525