9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the grounds for detention affect the maintenance of public order or merely the law and order situation. 2. Whether the third ground for detention was concocted. 3. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to have the assistance of a friend during the Advisory Board hearing. 4. Whether the Central Government considered the detention report as required under Section 3(5) of the National Security Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Grounds for Detention and Public Order The petitioner challenged the grounds for detention, arguing they did not affect public order but merely law and order. The court examined the incidents cited: - First Incident: The petitioner and associates threatened Yusuf, a contractor, demanding "chauth" (protection money) and assaulted him. The court noted this was not an isolated demand but one expected from all contractors in the area, thus affecting the community's even tempo. - Second Incident: The petitioner demanded Rs. 10,000 from Ashok Kumar, a shopkeeper, threatening to kill him if not paid. The court viewed this as part of a larger scheme to extort money from shopkeepers, causing fear among all shopkeepers in the locality. - Third Incident: The petitioner, armed with a revolver, threatened shopkeepers in Sardhana market to pay "chauth" or face consequences, leading to shop closures. This incident was considered to affect public tranquility and the even tempo of life in the market area. The court referenced several precedents, including *Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar* and *Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal*, concluding that the acts had a broad impact on the community, thus affecting public order. Issue 2: Concoction of Third Ground The petitioner claimed the third ground was fabricated to justify the detention order. The court found no merit in this contention, noting that the incident was promptly reported by H.C. Khajan Singh and verified by Inspector R.C. Verma. The court distinguished this case from *Gulab Mehra v. State of U.P.*, where the facts were different, and upheld the credibility of the third ground. Issue 3: Assistance of a Friend The petitioner alleged he was denied the assistance of a friend during the Advisory Board hearing. The court reviewed the counter affidavits and the radiogram sent by the State Government, which permitted the petitioner to appear with a non-advocate friend. The court found that the petitioner was informed of this but did not avail himself of the opportunity. The court cited *Vijay Kumar v. Union of India*, emphasizing that the petitioner did not request additional time or inform the Advisory Board of any difficulties in securing a friend. Thus, the court rejected this contention. Issue 4: Consideration by Central Government The petitioner argued that the Central Government did not consider the detention report as required under Section 3(5) of the Act. This issue was raised during arguments, and the Central Government was subsequently impleaded. The Central Government's counsel confirmed that the report was considered and found no reason to revoke the order. The court accepted this statement, finding no merit in the petitioner's argument. Conclusion: The court found no grounds to quash the detention order. The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality and constitutionality of the detention under the National Security Act.
|
