Ranjit Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

I.P. Singh, J.—Ranjeet Singh, son of Sri Mahendra Partap Singh, Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ''detenu'') has filed this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity of the detention order dated 23-12-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act (Act No. 65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and are of the view that since this writ petition can be disposed of on a short point to be discussed hereinafter, there is no necessity to detail all the facts or to consider and discuss them in this judgment.

The said detention order dated 23-12-1984 along with the grounds of detention and copies of the various FIRs relating to different grounds of detention was supplied to the detenu in District Jail, Basti.

As has been said above, this writ petition can be allowed on a very short point, that is, that the said detention order is bad in law as the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the impugned detention order is vitiated on ground of consideration of irrelevant and extraneous matters while passing the impugned detention order.

The grounds of detention detail six grounds of detention in all. The first four grounds of detention related to 24-2-1982, 9-10-82 and 5-11-1983 respectively. The grounds of detention describe the relevant crime case No. and sections under which the case relating to each grounds was registered. The other two grounds relate to incidents of 30-6-84 and 20-12-1984 respectively.

The above grounds of detention were before the detaining authority when he passed the said detention order. As the incidents relating to first four grounds of detention related to years 1982 and 1983 they had become stale for the purpose of passing the detention order. Besides the above four ground''s must have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in forming the requisite subjective satisfaction for passing the detention order, so his subjective satisfaction got vitiated in law. Therefore, the detention order cannot stand the test of legality and validity.

As the writ petition is allowable on the above ground, there is no need to discuss other points.

As a result, the writ petition is allowed. We direct the Respondents not to detain the detenu, namely, Ranjeet Singh, any more in pursuance of the detention order dated 23-12-1984 passed by the District Magistrate, Basti. It is, however, made clear that the order passed by us today would not entitle the detenu to his physical release if he is wanted in any other case or matter or can be lawfully detained in pursuance of any other order lawfully passed.