# D.N. Pandey v. V.C.,,S.S.V.V., Varanasi & ors

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 38
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1997-12-04
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/d-n-pandey-v-v-c-s-s-v-v-varanasi-ors-39215
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
38
provided in the Statute No. 12.22 of the First Statute of the
Sampurnanad Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi which is
applicable in the case of the petitioner.

3. The Statute 12.22 provides that in "case of office of the principal
of an affiliated college falls vacant the senior most teacher of the
college shall act as principal until a duly selected assumes office
provided that such teacher shall draw the pay he is entitled to get on
the post of the teacher and will not get the pay of the post of
principal during such period."

4. In View of the provisions contained in the Statute No.12.22 the
claim of the Petitioner for the salary of the post of the principal of
the college is not sustainable. Thus, Instant petition has no force.

5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily.

Petition Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 7+( 129(0%(5
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 7+( 129(0%(5
%()2
%()25(
5(
7+( +21·%/( '302+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( '302+$3$75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 55.75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( 55.75,9(', -

+$%($6 &$5386 :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)

5DMX %KDWLD
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK 2WKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL *XUHVK 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
$*$

6HFWLRQ RI 1DWLRQDO 6HFXULW\ $FW ± YDOLGLW\ RI WKH RUGHU RI
GHWHQWLRQ KDV WR EH MXGJHG LQ HYHU\ LQGLYLGXDO FDVH RQ LWV RZQ IDFW
WKH FRXUW LV RQO\ UHTXLUHG WR VHH DV WR ZKHWKHU RQ VXFK DOOHJDWLRQ LI
DFFHSWHG WUXH WKH VXEMHFWLYH VDWLVIDFWLRQ IRU SDVVLQJ DQ RUGHU RI
SUHYHQWLYH GHWHQWLRQ XQGHU WKH $FW FRXOG EH MXVWLILHG

1998
------
D.N. Pandey
 Vs.
V.C.,,S.S.V.V.,
Varanasi & ors.
------
D.S.Sinha,J.
B.K.Sharma,J.
1998
------
November, 12
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
39
By the Court

1. This habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Rajeev Bhatia
challenging the order of detention dated .4.12.1997 annexure 7 to the
writ petition, passed by respondent no.2. district Magistrate Kanpur
Nagar Under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980
(Herinafter referred to as the Act) and order dated 20.1.1998, under
Section 12(1) of the Act, both passed by respondent no. 1. The
petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to set
him at liberty forthwith.

2. The impugned order dated 4.12.1997 was served on the petitioner
in district jail, Kanpur Nagar on 5.12.1997. Along with the order of
detention, petitioner was also served with the grounds for passing the
said order by respondent no.2. In the grounds, inter alia, it has been
stated that on 6.11.1997, at 2.00 P.M. Mohit Kumar Balmiki, Pappu
and Vijai Dhobi came on a scooter to the tempo stand office,
Sarsaiya Ghat, Kanpur Nagar, and were talking to Prakash Narain
Kureel. After five minutes, petitioner along with his companions
Shankar Balmiki and Sumit Tripathi came in a green Maruti van
bearing registration no., UP-78 J-6795. All of them alighted from the
Maruti van and fired from country-made pistols and in order to kill
Vijai Dhobi, hurled two bombs which exploded near room of
Prakash Narain. Pappu received fire-arm injury in his hand. Pappu,
Mohit and Vijai Dhobi alongwith Prakash Narain Kureel went inside
the room, petitioner and his companions fired indiscriminately and
threw bombs on account of which panic prevailed in Mohalla
Sarsaiya Ghat. People ran helter-skelter. Those who were on road
turned back their vehicles and started running away, tempo drivers
and rickshaw-pullers left their vehicles and started running,
commotion and fear prevailed all around. At this point of time a
police jeep arrived seeing which all the five persons including the
petitioner left the place on the Maruti van and went towards
Phoolbagh.

3. Prakash Narain Kureel lodged report of this occurrence in Police
Station Kotwali which was registered as case Crime No. 343 of
1997, under Sections 147/148/307 I.P.C.

4. On 6.11.1997, at 5.15 P.M., Dinesh Kumar Sisodia, Inspector incharge, Fazalganj Police Station, lodged report at Police Station
Pheelkhana to the effect that on 6.11.1997 when he along with other
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
40
police officials was deputed for V.I.P. duty and was proceeding
from Police lines to Sarsaiya Ghat crossing, they heard explosions of
bombs and sound of fire - arms. Passers - by and children told that
a little away from that place bombs are being thrown. On this
information they chased they chased the Maruti van of Petitioner
and reached the taxi stand via Phoolbagh where a big crowd of
persons from all walks of life had already assembled. The petitioner
and his companions who were boarding the maruti Van, started firing
at the police. The Inspector in-charge P.S. fazalganj, and other
persons in the Police party narrowly escaped and without ring for
their life, they proceeded towards the Maruti Van. The culprits left
the Maruti van and taking advantage of the crowl assembled there,
successfully escaped. When they were chased, the petitioner and his
companions fired at the police party again in which constable
Kanhaiya lal excaped narrowly. Sumit Tripathi, one of the
companions of the petitioner, threw his, 315 bore gun which was
lying at the spoot. However, the petitioner and his one companion
Sushil Kumar were arrested at the spot with their illegal fire-arms,
cartridges and bombs.

5. In respect of this occurrence, reports were lodged as case crime
no. 238 of 1997, under Sections 143/148/149/307 I.P.C., case crime
no. 239 of 1997, under Section 25 of the Arms Act and case No. 242
of 1997, under Section 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act. In respect
of this occurrence a report was also lodged by Inspector In-Charge
Kotwali Sri R.S.Garbyal, in General Diary report No. 63, dated
6.11.1997 at about 11.10 P.M. he also narrated how the public order
was disturbed on account of the aforesaid activities of the petitioner
and his companions. High officers visited the spot which fact was
also mentioned in the report.

6. Aforesaid activities were committed by the petitioner and his
companions in public place and broad day light at the busiest crossroad of Sarsaiya Ghat; 150 vards away from this place there is a
place of pilgrimage and Temple, tempo stand, civil court,
Collectorate, Treasury, Office of Collectorate, Kanpur Dehat, Offices
and residence of Commissioner , Kanpur Division, and Deputy
Inspector General of Police of the region and there is a V.I.P. road.
From the aforesaid criminal activities of the petitioner and his
companions, panic prevailed among persons visiting the temple and
school going children and people present there. On account of the
firing on Vijai Dhobi, fear and commotion prevailed all around and
even tempo of life of the community was disturbed.
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
41

7. The Investigating Officer prepared a sketch map of the place of
occurrence. The Occurrence was also widely covered by the Press
people and News was published in Hindi daily "Dainik Jagran " and
"Aaj" of 7.11.1997. High ranking officers visited the spot and in
their inspection reports all of them hed mentioned about the fear,
commotion and terror prevailing in the Locality. It has also been
stated that the petitioner has turned criminal as he is close associate
of dreaded criminals Sumit Tripathi and Uma Shanker alias lala.
They have five persons in there gang and quite often they indulge in
committing offences of dacoity, murder and robbery. The other
persons of this gang are Jitendra alias babu and Sushil Kumar. The
criminal record of summit Tripathi and Uma Shanker alias lala has
also been mentioned. The Dy. S.P. Kanpur nagar informed the senior
Superintendent of police that confidential report has been received
that the petitioner and his companions are again planning to kill
Vijay Dhobi in Public place by similar attacks by bombs and bullets
and if police comes in way, it shall also be tackled with better and if
police in way, it shall also be tackled with better preparation it is
clear from the confidential report received that the petitioner and his
companions have already made preparations to disturb the public
order in large scale and to meet such an eventuality administration
has to take effective steps and should keep adequate vigilance.

8. The Investigating Officer of the aforesaid occurrence has
recorded statement of the witness under section 161 Cr.P.C. who
have all mentioned in there statement in detail that on account of the
aforesaid criminal activities of the petitioner and his companions, the
atmosphere had vitiated, the even tempo of life of the community
was disturbed and people ran helterskelter to save their lives fear
and terror prevailed all around, people closed their doors and
windows, vehicles passing through that place turned their direction
and ran away from the place. It is manifest that from the aforesaid
activities of the petitioner and his companions public order had been
disturbed. It has also been mentioned that presently the petitioner is
in judicial custody and confined in District jail, Kanpur Nagar, he
has already been granted bail on 18.11.1997 by the Court in case
Crime No. 238 of 1997, under Sections 147/148/307 I.P.C. and the
petitioner has also moved bail application in case crime no. 343 of
1997 and 5.12.1997 was fixed for hearing and there was every
likelihood that the petitioner will be granted bail. In case the
petitioner was released on bail, there was strong possibility that he
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
42
shall again indulge in similar criminal activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of the public order.

9. On the aforesaid grounds, respondents no. 2 felt satisfied that with
a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of the petitioner be detained.

10. In the grounds the petitioner was also informed that against the
order of detention, he has right to make a representation to the state
Government, Advisory Board and the central Government. Such
representation may be submitted through the Superintendent of Jail.
If he desires a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, this fact
should also be mentioned in the representation.

11. The impugned order of detention services on the petitioner on
05.11.1997 was approved by the state Government under Section
3(4) of the Act on 12.12.1997. The fact of approval was
communicated to the petitioner on 15.12.1997. same day, the central
Government was also informed about the petitioner under Section
3(5) of the Act. The case of the Petitioner was referred to the
Advisory Board on 15.11.1997, under Section 10 of the Act with all
the papers. The advisory Board examined the representation of the
petitioner and also heard him personally on 8.1.1998. The report of
the advisory Board was received on 14.1.1998 indicating that there
was sufficient cause of detain the petitioner under the provisions of
the Act. The State Government after examining all the papers and the
report of the Advisory Board confirmed the order for keeping the
petitioner under detention for 12 months by order dated 20.1.1998.

12. The Petitioner submitted his representations addressed to the
State Government and the Central Government on 18.12.1997 which
was received by the state government on 22.12.1997. Petitioner's
representation was examined and rejected by the State Government
on 9.1.1998. Representation dated 18.12.1997 addressed to the
Central government was received on 29.12.1997. On this
representation on certain vital information was called for from the
State Government Through cash wireless message on 31.12.1997.
The requisite information was received by the Central Government
the Ministry of Home affairs on 21.1.1998. On receiving the said
informed on the representation was considered by the officers and it
was put before the Ministry of state for Home Affairs on 28.1.1998.
the Ministry after consideration rejected the representation on
3.2.1998.
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
43

13. In this petition counter affidavits have been filed by Shri
R.S.Agarwal on behalf of respondent no.1, Shri Prabhat Kumar, the
then District Magistrate, Respondent no.2 has filed his own counter
affidavit, Shri Nagesh Singh, Dy. Jailor, District Jail, kanpur Nagar,
has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.4. Union of
India.

14. We have heard Shri O.P.Singh, Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Shri
M.P.Singh for respondents nos. 1 to 3 and Shri Tej Prakash Mishra,
Additional standing counsel, for Union of India.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the impugned
order of detention, made the following submissions :-

1. The first submission was that the impugned order of detention was
passed respondent no.2 on the basis of a single incident which was
not more than a scuffle between two groups and could only be
termed a problem relating to law and order. On the basis of such a
single incident public order could not be disturbed.

2. It was further contended that the relevant papers mentioned in the
grounds on which basis the order of detention was passed were not
supplied to the petitioner. Thus he could not make effective
representation and the impugned order vitiated for non-compliance
of section 8 of the Act.

3. Lastly, it has been submitted that there was inordinate and
unexplained delay by the Central Government in deciding the
representation of the petitioner which has rendered the continued
detention of the petitioner illegal.

16. Learned Additional Government advocate, on the other hand,
submitted that from the narration of the two incidents of 6.11.1997
mentioned in the grounds and also in the first information reports
lodged in respect of the incidents and from other material on record,
it is clear that on account of the criminal activities of the petitioner
and his companions public order and even tempo of life of the
community was badly disturbed. The facts was fully corroborated by
the witnesses of the incidents examined under section 61 Cr.P.C. by
the Investigating Officer. The confidential report of the Local
Intelligence unit also proved that as petitioner and his colleagues
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
44
failed in there attempt to kill Vijai Dhobi, they were engaged in
serious planning for a second attempt with better preparations.
Learned counsel also submitted that there is no bar that an order of
preventive detention cannot be passed on the basis of a single
incident. Passing of the order depends on the nature of the incident
and its reach and effect of the people residing in that locality.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner that he was not supplied the document
mentioned in the ground is not correct. In fact, the signed
acknowledging the receipt of the each and every paper served on
hem along with the order of detention on 5.12.1997. Learned counsel
has further submitted that there is no delay in deciding the
representation of the petitioner and the short delay involved has
been fully explained in the counter affidavit filed by Bina Prasad on
behalf of respondent no. 4

17. Learned counsel for the parties also relied on certain authorities
which shall be dealt with at the appropriate place.

18. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was
that the impugned order of detention could not be alleged passed on
the basis of the single incident which at the most related to law and
order and it could not be said that it could effect the public order in
any way. For the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the cases : Anil Dey Vs. State of
West Bengal 6 A.I.R. 1974 S.C> 832), Anant Sakharam Raut Vs.
State of Maharashtra and another (A.I.R. 1987 S.C.137) state of
U.P. Versus Hari Shanker Tiwari (A.I.R 1987 S.C.998), Smt.
Shahshi Agarwal Versus State of U.P. and others (A.I.R 1988
S.C.596), Ahmed Husain Shaikh Husain Vs. Commissioner of police
(1989) 4 S.S.C 751), and Abhai Shridhar Ambulkar vs. S.B.Bhave,
Commissioner of police (A.I.R 1991 S.C. 397) (-1991 (1) crimes
290.
19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the petitioner and in our considered opinion none of the aforesaid
cases help the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present
case. In case of Smt. Shashi Agarwal (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Para .9 held as under.

"Section 3 of National Security Act does not preclude
the Authority from making an order of detention
against a person while he is in custody or in a jail but
the relevants facts in connection with the making of
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
45
the order would make all the difference in every case.
The validity of the order of detention has to be judged
in every individual case on its own facts. There must
be a material apparent disclosed to the detaining
authority in each case that the person against whom
an order of preventive detention is being made, is
already under custody and yet for compelling reasons
his preventive detention is necessary."

20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case was considering the
validity of the order of detention passed while the detenue was in
jail. In the present case no such question was argued before us. As
seen above, validity of the order of detention has to be judged in
every individual case on its own facts. Therefore, this Court has to
see the facts of the present case as to whether the detaining authority
could reasonably have a subjective satisfaction for passing the order
of detention. The major determining factors are the place and time of
incident, the nature of the incident and its effect and reach on the
residents of the locality. From the narration of the incident
mentioned in the earlier part if this judgement it is clear that the
incident took place in the busiest cross-road of town Kanpur nagar
known as Sarsaiya Ghat crossing. The occurrence took place at 2.00
P.M. While the activities of the people of the town could he at the
peak. As alleged in the grounds the detenue and his companions
continued hurling bombs at such a busy place until a policy only
thereafter. The effect and reach of such an incident on the people of
the locality can be well imagined. Again, same day in the evening
the petition and his companions indulged in similar activities and
fired at the police party but they were chased and arrested. The
incidents were of such a serious nature that high officers visited the
place. Their reports and statements of the witnesses under section
161 Cr.P.C. made it apparent that even tempo of life of the
community and the public order was badly disturbed. It is well
established that we are not required to go into the correctness of the
allegation made. The court is only required to see as to whether on
such allegations, if accepted true, the subjective satisfaction for
passing an order of preventive detention under the Act could be
justified. We have no doubt that the order of detention in the facts
and circumstances of the case is perfectly justified. The confidential
report of the local Intelligence Unit that the petitioner and his
companions are planing to report similar activity with better
preparations was very relevant. On record there is ample material to
justify the ordr of detention against the petitioner. The cases relied
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
46
on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable on facts and do not
help the petitioner in any way.

21. The Second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
was that relevant papers relied on un there grounds were not paras.25
and 26 of the writ petition and para.14 of the representation
addressed to the Central Government and the State Government.
Learned Addl. Government Advocate filled supplementary counter
affidavit on 28.10.1998. Along with the supplementary counter
affidavit filed by Shri O.P.Singh, Deputy Jailor in District Jail,
Kanpur Nagar, copies of all the documents have been filed which
were signed by the petitioner on 5.12.1997, acknowledging receipt
of the copies. In the writ petition as well as in the representation
petitioner did not say a word about the signatures on these papers.
Though by filling a supplementary rejoinder affidavit an attempt has
been made to explain but, in our opinion; the petitioner was not
correct in saying that the documents were not supplied to him. The
petitioner in his representation dated 17.12.1997 has mentioned his
version of the case with reference to the annexures supplied to him.
The manner in which the evermtns have been made in the reply
leaves no doubt's that the petitioner was in possession of the of the
appears at the times of preparing his representation. In para.14 of the
representation in a vague manner it has been said that in respect of
cases crime no.278 of 1987 no. papers, site plan and statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were annexed along with the order of
detention which renders the alleged incident doubtful. Thus from the
facts and circumstances and the material available on record, the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
documents were not supplied cannot be accepted.

22. The Last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was
about delay in deciding the representation of the petitioner by the
Central Government. We have carefully examined this aspect of the
case also. The representation dated 18.12.1997 addressed to the
central Government was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs on
29.12.1997 through the District Magistrate, kanpur Nagar. The
representation was proceed for consideration and it was found that
certain vital information was requited from the State Government for
which a crash wireless messages was sent on 31.12.1997. the
requisite information was received on 21.1.1998. On receiving the
said information the case was put up before the under Secretary,
Ministry of Home affairs, on 27.1.1998 who same day after
examination placed the matter before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of
1998
------
Raju Bhatia
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& others
------
D.P.
Mohapatra, CJ
R.R.K.
Trivedi, J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
47
Home affairs. The Joint Secretary placed the representation with his
comments before the Ministry considered the representation of the
petitioner and rejected the same on 3.2.1998. Thus the representation
was decided within 13 days receipt of the information from the state
Government. During this period of 13 days, 24th,25th,26th, 30th and
31st of January, 1998 and 1st of February, 1998 were holidays. Thus,
if these six days are excluded, the representation was promptly
decide within reasonable time. The Time taken in deciding the
representation has been fully explained in paras .6, 7 and 8 of the
counter affidavit of Bina prasad. In our opinion, this submission of
the learned circumstances for the petitioner has also no force.

 23. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this
petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %5,-(6+ .80$5 $&-
7+( +21·%/( %5,-(6+ .80$5 $&-
7+( +21·%( 55.75,9(', -
7+( +21·%( 55.75,9(', -

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION NO.21277 OF 1998

3DSSX DOLDV $XVDQ 6LQJK
« 3HWLWLRQHU,Q MDLO
9HUVXV
6XSHULQWHQGHQWGLVWULFW -DLO0DLQSXUL RWKHUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6UL 'D\D 6KDQNDU 0LVUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
 6UL 616ULYDVWDYD 6&

6HFWLRQ RI 1DWLRQDO 6HFXULW\ $FW ± 7KH GLVSRVDO RI WKH
UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH GHWHQXH FDQQRW EH GHOD\HG RU SRVWSRQHG
DZDLWLQJ WKH GHFLVLRQ RU WKH UHSRUW RI WKH DGYLVRU\ ERDUG 7KLV
GHOD\ LQ GHFLGLQJ WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU UHQGHUV WKH
RUGHU RI GHWHQWLRQ WR EH LOOHJDO2WKH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LV WR EH
FRQVLGHUHG DQG GLVSRVHG RI ZLWK DOO SURPSWQHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ
LW LQYROYHV OLEHUW\ RI WKH FLWL]HQ DV FRQWDLQHG LQ $UWLFOHV RI WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ

1998
------
December, 17