TMI Blog1972 (5) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13, 1971. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14, 1971 and was served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. On November 18,1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on November 24, 1971. Necessary report was also sent on that day by the State Government to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicial to the maintenance of public order. In this respect we find that according to the grounds of detention, the order for the petitioner s detention was made on the ground that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below; taken separately or collectively That on 26-9-71 at about 18.30 hours while Baidyanath Bandopadhya of Champapukur, P.S. Basirhat, District 24- Parganas along with his wife were travelling ill a 3rd class compartment of Up Basirhat local train from Barasat, You along with your associates attacked him and his wife with open knives between Champapukur R/s and Basirhat R/S and robbed them of Wrist Watch, Gold Ornaments, Cash valued at ₹ 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bs with terrible sound. It is further stated that the above act of the petitioner and his associates created panic and confusion among the passengers and thus disturbed public order. Each one of the above two incidents of September 26, 1971 and November 4, 1971, in our opinion, affected public order and not merely law and order. The distinction between the concept of public order and that of law and order has been adverted to by this Court in a number of cases. In the case of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar([1966] 1 S.C.R. 709.), Hidayatullah J. (as he then was) said that any contravention of law always affected order, but before it could be said to affect public order, it must affect the community at large. He considered three c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the community and incite them to make further breaches of the law and order and to subvert the public order. An Act by itself is not determinant of its own gravity. In its quality it may not differ from another but in its poten- tiality it may be very different. The question where a man has only committed a breach of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance ,of the public order, according to the dictum laid down in the above case is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the society. Public order is what the French call order publique and is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. The test to be adopted in determining whether an act affects law and order or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner to the ,case of Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta A nr. ([1970] 3 S.C.R. 360.). The petitioner in that case along with others committed various acts on three occasions. On the first occasion lie attached the people of a locality with a knife and by hurling bottles at them.' On the other two.occasions he attacked the people of another locality by hurling bombs at them.. It was held that the incidents were not interlinked and could not have prejudiced tile- maintenance of public order. As against the above solitary decision, Mr. Chakravarti on behalf of the respondent-State has referred to the principle laid down in the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (supra) as well as in the case of N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e which would be comprehended by the, expression order publique . The detention order was consequently upheld. In S. K. Kedar v. State of West Bengal (WP No. 35 of 1972 decided on May 2, 1972) the allegation against the detenu was that he and his associates while removing railway material charged bombs and ballast upon R.P.F. party as a consequence of which the members of R.P.F. party fired in self-defence. The activity of the petitioner was considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention order was upheld. The facts of the present case are much more akin to those of Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and Ors. v. State of West Bengal (supra). The past activities of the petitioner as revealed in the grounds of detent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
