Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

1989 (9) TMI 381

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ran towards Chaupal Gudri and was going towards Ismail Nagar and, according to the order of detention, 'some unde- sirable elements' present there did not allow the cow to go on the right way and .she again came towards Chaupala Gudri, and was made to run avoiding the crowd towards Nakaar Chian but near the shop of Haj Dhola, 'some undesirable elements' stopped the cow and poked a wood piece on her back. Due to this the cow started pumping and himping and ran inside the celebration. It is stated that at this the petitioner came to the stage, got excited and spread the rumor that "the police had not made any arrangements". It was stated that the cow belonged to the Hindus and had been deliberately sent inside the festival and "other provoking" things. Due to the aforesaid, the people started running and communal feelings got around. It is stated in the order of detention that in this way the petitioner had committed an act which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Again on 9th April, 1988 at about 9 p.m. near Transformer at Gudri Chaupala P.S. Kotwa- li, the petitioner is alleged to have "provoked some per- sons" of the muslim community by saying that "the adminis- t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Meerut, by an affidavit affirmed on 28th August, 1989 and filed in these proceedings, stated that raids on the petitioner's premises for the service of the order dated 15.4.1988 were conducted. It was further stated that the respondent authorities had made all efforts to serve the order on the petitioner and for this purpose the house of the petitioner was raided on several occasions and a refer- ence was made to the general diary report, details whereof were extracted in the affidavit. The details indicate that in respect of the order dated 15.4.1988 the first raid was made in the house of the petitioner on 12th May, 1988, followed by eight other attempts up to the end of May, 1988 to arrest the petitioner but he was not available. There was, however, no attempt in the months of June, July, Au- gust' 88 but on 23, 25 & 29th September, 1988 three attempts were made and as such, it was stated on behalf of the re- spondents, the order could not be served before 2nd October, 1988. According to the District Magistrate, the respondent authorities did not leave any stone unturned to arrest the petitioner. It was, however, stated that from May, 1988 to September, 1988 the entire police ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osest scrutiny and examination by the courts. In the interest of public order, for the greater good of the commu- nity, it becomes imperative for the society to detain a person in order to prevent him and not merely to punish him from the threatened or contemplated or anticipated course of action. Satisfaction of the authorities based on conduct must precede action for prevention. Satisfaction entails belief. Satisfaction and belief are subjective. Actions based on subjective satisfaction are objective indication of the existence of the subjective satisfaction. Action based on satisfaction should be with speed commensurate with the situation. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case there was no material adduced on behalf of the Govt. indicating that the petitioner was "absconding". It was urged that there are no material at all to indicate that the petitioner was evading arrest or was absconding. It was submitted that s. 7 of the Act gave power to the authorities to take action in case the persons were absconding and in case the order of detention cannot be executed. It is stated that in this case no warrant under s. 7 of the Act has been issued in respect of his pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tice Bhagwati, as the learned Chief Justice then was, speaking for the Court observed at page 595 of the report that it will be reasona- ble to assume that if the Distt. Magistrate was really and genuinely satisfied after proper application of mind to the materials before him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial manner, he would have acted with greater promp- titude in securing the arrest of the petitioner immediately after invoking of the order of detention, and the petitioner would not have been allowed to remain at large for such a long period of time to carry on his nefarious activities. It is, however, not the law that whenever there is some delay in arresting the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to be not genuine or colourable. Each case must depend on its own peculiar facts and circum- stances. In this case, from the facts and the circumstances set out hereinbefore we find no reasonable or acceptable explanation for the delay. In a situation of communal ten- sion prompt action is imperative. It is, therefore, not possible for this Court to be satisfied that the District Magist....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ublic order that is important in this case. What the petitioner has alleged to have done may have some relevancy to the purpose of securing law and order but there cannot be any rational nexus with the satisfaction regarding the maintenancy of public order. By the conduct alleged or the saying attributed as mentioned above, public order was not prejudiced. Criticism of Police does not prejudice public order, it is said. The Court has to ensure that the order of detention is based on materials before it. If it is found that the order passed by the detaining au- thority was on materials on record, the Court can examine the record only for the purpose of seeing whether the order of detention was based on no material or whether the materi- als have rational nexus with satisfaction that public order was prejudiced. Beyond this, the Court is not concerned. See the observations of The State of Gujarat v. Adam Kasam Bhaya, [1982] 1 SCR 740. The difference between public order and law and order is a matter of degree. If the morale of the police force or of the people is shaken by making them lose their faith in the law enforcing machinery of the State then prejudice is occasioned to mainten....