9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, passed an order on July 10, 1971, detaining the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Thereafter the petitioner was arrested on July 13, 1971, and was served with the order of detention as also with the grounds of detention together with a vernacular translation thereof on the same day. On July 14, 1971, the District Magistrate reported to the State Government about the passing of the detention order. The report was considered by the State Government on July 21, 1971, and the Government approved the order of detention passed by the District Magistra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the detenu on the same day. 3. The grounds of detention communicated to the petitioner stated: (1) That on 5-7-1971 at about 0530 hrs. you along with your associates, while removing Brake Blocks, Vertical Layers and other railway materials from wagon Nos. NRP 1820 and PW 3471 at Chitpur Rly. Yard, charged bombs and ballasts upon the on-duty R.P.F. party, when challenged by them. Your attack grew so violent that RK 6448 Ram Bachan Rai of the R.P.F. Party had to fire one round in self-defence, when you all fled away. You created disturbance of public order thereby. (2) That on 5-7-1971 night again at 20.30 hrs., you along with your associates, while removing iron rods from BF Wagon No. ER99155 at Chitpur Rly. Yard, charged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... communicated to him would amount to commission of offences which would disturb public order or which are likely to disturb public order. 5. The relevant criteria to distinguish in the abstract between acts prejudicial to maintenance of law and order and those which are prejudicial to maintenance of public order are laid down in a number of rulings of this Court (see Pushkar Mukherjee and Ors v. The State of West Bengal 1970 CriLJ 852, Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and another [1969] 3 SCR 966 and Nagendra Nath Mondal v. The State of West Bengal 1972 CriLJ 482. The question whether a person has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with their activities in getting the goods loaded and unloaded. The acts attributed to the petitioner had the potentiality of affecting the even tempo of the life of the community in the locality by their reverberations. We therefore, overrule the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the grounds communicated to the petitioner did not disclose that he indulged in any activity which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 8. It was contended that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being personally heard by the Advisory Board before it sent the report, incorporating its opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. We do not think that there is any substance in this contentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
