2013 (7) TMI 1188 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds detention order due to public order impact, timely approval, valid grounds, no delay in representation, and reasonable time gap.

The court upheld the detention order, finding that the detenu's acts affected public order, not just law and order. The detention order was approved ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the offences allegedly committed by the detenu affected 'public order'.2. Whether the detention order was validly passed and approved within the statutory time limits.3. Whether the grounds for detention were extraneous, invalid, or vague.4. Whether there was delay in forwarding the detenu's representation to the Government.5. Whether all documents relied on by the detaining authority were served on the detenu.6. Whether the detention order was vitiated due to the time gap between the last prejudicial act and the detention order.Summary:1. Public Order vs. Law and Order:The court examined whether the offences allegedly committed by the detenu affected 'public order' or merely 'law and order'. The detenu was involved in multiple criminal cases, including serious offences under various sections of IPC. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Apex Court, stating that 'public order' is distinct from 'law and order' and involves acts that disturb public tranquility. The court concluded that the detenu's acts, committed in public places and daylight, terrorized the locality and disturbed the even tempo of life, thereby affecting public order.2. Validity and Timeliness of Detention Order:The petitioner contended that the detention order was not approved within the time specified u/s 3(3) of the Act. The court noted that the detention order was issued on 16.2.2013, and the Government approved it on 7.3.2013, within the 12-day period specified. The court found no requirement for the Government to communicate the approval within 12 days and dismissed the contention of delay.3. Grounds for Detention:The petitioner argued that the grounds for detention were extraneous, invalid, and vague. The court referred to the definitions of 'known rowdy' and 'rowdy' u/s 2(p) and 2(t) of the Act, respectively. The court held that once the offences satisfied the legislative specifications, the detenu could not argue that the offences were not grave enough to render his detention illegal.4. Delay in Forwarding Representation:The petitioner claimed there was a delay in forwarding his representation to the Government. The court observed that the detenu submitted the representation on 2.4.2013, which was received by the Government on 9.4.2013, after the Advisory Board had already considered the matter. The court concluded that the representation was belated and lacked statutory flavor u/s 7(2) of the Act, and thus, any delay in its communication did not invalidate the detention order.5. Service of Documents:The petitioner contended that not all documents relied on by the detaining authority were served on the detenu. The court found that the subsequent reports of the sponsoring authority were indeed supplied to the detenu. Regarding the Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings, the court noted that the detaining authority did not rely on these proceedings, and hence, there was no obligation to supply related documents.6. Time Gap Between Last Prejudicial Act and Detention Order:The petitioner argued that the time gap between the last prejudicial act (23.10.12) and the detention order (16.2.13) vitiated the detention. The court found that the delay was explained by the time taken for the authority to apply its mind and pass the order. Therefore, this contention was also dismissed.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The detention order was upheld as valid and in compliance with statutory requirements.