Palla (In Jail) vs State of U.P. and Others

M.C. Jain, J.—The Petitioner has challenged the detention order dated 31.5.2003, passed against him by the Respondent No. 2-District Magistrate , Jalaun at Oral u/s 3(2) of National Security Act, 1980.

The grounds of detention are contained in Annexure-4 to the petition. The Petitioner was involved with his associates in slaughtering as many as 103 cows on 21.2.2003 at about 2.15 p.m. at a place within Police Station Kotwali, Kalpi. S.I. C. L. Arun, accompanied by certain other police personnel had reached the scene of slaughter on getting information through an informer. 16 other cows, 17 she-calves and one he-calf were also found tethered there for being slaughtered. The slaughtering of cows on such a large scale created an atmosphere of communal tension in the area, disturbing public order and tranquillity. Sufficient force had to be deployed to control the situation. The communal tension created by the incident was so intense that the students of different colleges and members of political parties took out a procession through the markets shouting communal slogans and despite all efforts, the entire market was closed on 24.2.2003. A case u/s 3/5/8 of U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act was registered.

We have heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned A.G.A. for Respondents.

Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.

On consideration, we are of the opinion that this matter certainly pertains to public order. The incident of slaughtering of cows did disturb the public order and communal harmony of the society. Communal tension came to be created by this incident and sufficient force had to be deployed for the restoration of normalcy. The sentiments of the members of the Hindu community were bound to be hurt by slaughtering of cows at such a large scale. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also did not contend that it was not a matter of public order and was confined to law and order only. In the grounds of the petition also, it has not been challenged that the matter did not fall within the purview of the public order. So finding it to be a case of public order, we proceed to consider the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The first argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the District Magistrate concerned did not record his satisfaction that there was real possibility of the Petitioner being released on bail and that on being released he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities. We should point out that documents accompanying the detention order and referred to therein form composite bundle of material. We find that narrating the incident and grave adverse repercussions produced by it on public order, the District Magistrate did record his satisfaction on the above aspect of the matter and contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not hold good. He has reiterated also in his affidavit that after receiving police report along with documents, he had gone through the same and considered the entire facts and circumstances independently. He was satisfied on the consideration that the activity of the Petitioner created panic and terror in and around the area and communal tension in between two communities was generated. The additional force had to be deployed to control the situation. He was also satisfied that the Petitioner was trying to get himself released on bail and after release he would indulge in such similar activities. It was in consequence of having been so satisfied that the detention order was passed by him.

On perusing the detention order together with the related documents referred to therein, it is clearly borne out that such satisfaction had rightly been arrived at by the District Magistrate concerned. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not hold good.

The next argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that there was delay in the consideration of his representation dated 8.6.2003, which, according to him, was rejected on 26.7.2003. This argument, too, lacks merit and is not supported by reality. In fact, there was no delay in the consideration and decision of the representation of the Petitioner. It has been explained in the counter-affidavit/ supplementary counter-affidavit of Subedar Yadav, Deputy Jailor that the Petitioner submitted his representation in the late hours of evening on 8.6.2003. 9th and 10th June, 2003 were holidays. Any way, the constable who was assigned the work to fetch the representation was on leave and hence Kamlesh Nai who was appointed as barber in the jail was asked to serve the representation in the office of District Magistrate, Jalaun. The representation was made over in the office of the District Magistrate on 10.6.2003. The District Magistrate, Jalaun, Nitishwar Kumar has sworn in his affidavit that the representation came up before him on 11.6.2003. There was no delay in the representation coming up before him on 11.6.2003, which was received in his office on 10.6.2003. Thereafter parawise comments were prepared by the District Magistrate concerned whereafter he rejected it on 14.6.2003 and the same was sent to the State Government on 15.6.2003. It was received in the concerned section of the State Government on 17.6.2003 as per the affidavit of Ramesh Chandra Uttam, Under Secretary. The concerned section examined the representation and submitted a detailed note on 19.6.2003. The Deputy Secretary examined it on 20.6.2003 and on the same day it was examined by the Special Secretary. Thereafter, it was submitted to the Secretary who, too, examined it the same day and submitted to the higher authorities for final orders of the State Government. After due consideration, it was finally rejected by the State Government on 21.6.2003, 22.6.2003 was holiday. On 23.6.2003, the file was returned to the concerned section. The rejection of the representation was communicated to the Petitioner through district authorities by the State Government radiogram dated 25.6.2003. The rejection came to be served on the Petitioner on 27.6.2003.

The learned A.G.A. has rightly argued that there is valid explanation and justification for the intervening period also, because the rejection of the representation recorded by the Secretary concerned on the file could not be communicated to the Petitioner as such. It had to be shaped as proper communication for transmission to the detenu. The explanation sounds to be logical and plausible. The rejection recorded on the file could not be communicated as such to the detenu with hurricane speed. In our opinion, therefore, there was no delay in the consideration of the representation of the Petitioner.

Both the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner lack merit. The detention order has been passed for valid grounds. There is no technical flaw either.

In view of the above discussion, the petition is hereby dismissed.