# India v. Shivram Mahadu 1995 Supp (3)

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 89
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-12-09
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14813 of 2002
- **Bench:** M.C. Jain, K.S. Rakhra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/india-v-shivram-mahadu-1995-supp-3-40061
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

National Security Act 1980-section 3 (2)
- Detention order- the incident of 1997
in respect of which concerned parties
had compounded the offence could not
be a ground for detaining the petitioner
under the National Security Act (Held in
Para 11)

Our conclusion is that the incidents
whereupon
the
impugned
detention
order is based are not relatable to
disturbance
of
public
order.
The
detention
of
the
petitioner
under
National Security Act cannot be justified.
As such we allow the writ petition and
quash the detention order in question.
Case Law Referred:
AIR 1975 SC 730

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Ranveer Singh alias Guddu Singh Vs. U.O.I. Ministry of Home Affairs and others
89
without leave hence in view of paragraph
2014
(2)
of
the
Indian
Railways
Establishment Code he was deemed to be
removed from service. Moreover, in our
opinion the entire burden of proof
regarding the appointment of respondent
no. 1 and his service and status was on
him but he failed to discharge this burden
by not producing any record. The railway
record has been weeded out as stated by
the railway in view of its circular. In the
absence of the relevant record and paper
we fail to see how the Tribunal could
allow the O.A. of the respondent no. 1
since the burden of proof was on him.
Merely showing some paper of the
Provident Fund account was not sufficient
discharge of the burden.

16. The tribunal in paragraph 5 of its
order has observed that the procedure for
imposing major punishment was not
followed before removing the respondent.
In our opinion that procedure has not to
be followed in this case as this is a case of
abandoning the job and not a termination
of service in the strict sense. Hence there
was no question of giving opportunity of
hearing to the respondent no. 1 in this
case. An employee simply cannot be
absent from work for seventeen years and
then suddenly appear and claim that he
should be given duty. Tuberculosis is
nowadays a curable disease and there is
no
justification
for
absenting
for
seventeen long years. The O.A. was filed
in 1992 that is after twenty years after the
respondent no. 1 had stopped attending to
his duties.

17. In Ratam Chandra Sammanta
Vs. Union of India J.T. 1993 (3) SC 418
the facts were that the petitioners were
employed between 1964 to 1969 and
retrenched between 1973 to 1979. The
petitioners approached the Court only
after a lapse of fifteen years. The Supreme
Court held that the delay deprived the
person of remedy as well as the right in
case of such long delay.

18. In Secretary to Government of
India Vs. Shivram Mahadu 1995 Supp (3)
SCC 231 the respondent was discharged
from service from 7.10.1986 and he filed
a claim petition before the Tribunal only
in 1990. The Supreme Court held that the
application was clearly barred by time
even if it was true that the respondent was
suffering from schizophrenia. A similar
view was taken by the Supreme Court in
Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs. Udham Singh
Kamal 1999 (8) SCC 304.

19. In view of the above we allow
this petition and set aside the order of the
Tribunal dated 28.7.2000 and hold that
the Tribunal should have rejected the
O.A. of the respondent no. 1 in toto. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.
THE HON'BLE K.S. RAKHRA, J.

Habeas Corpus Petition No. 14813 of
2002

Ranveer Singh alias Guddu Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Ministry of Home Affairs
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.N. Singh
Sri B.N. Singh
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
90 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Addl. S.C.
A.G.A.

National Security Act 1980-section 3 (2)
- Detention order- the incident of 1997
in respect of which concerned parties
had compounded the offence could not
be a ground for detaining the petitioner
under the National Security Act (Held in
Para 11)

Our conclusion is that the incidents
whereupon
the
impugned
detention
order is based are not relatable to
disturbance
of
public
order.
The
detention
of
the
petitioner
under
National Security Act cannot be justified.
As such we allow the writ petition and
quash the detention order in question.
Case Law Referred:
AIR 1975 SC 730

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. The petitioner has challenged the
detention order dated 14.1.2002 passed
against him by respondent no. 3 District
Magistrate, Mau under Section 3 (2) of
the National Security Act, 1980 and his
continued detention thereunder.

2. The grounds of detention are
contained in Annexure-3 to the writ
petition. The first ground is that on
13.4.1995 at about 7.45 P.M. he with his
associate Shiv Prasad Singh had fired on
one Kamla Kant, though he had escaped
unhurt. Crime No 34 of 1995 under
section 307 I.P.C. was registered at Police
Station Ranipur, District Mau in which
chargesheet had been submitted. He had
secured bail in that case. That incident
disturbed the public order. People ran
helter- skelter and an atmosphere of terror
and insecurity was created in the area.

3. The second ground is that on
6.6.1997 at about 9.30 P.M. he with his
associates Brijeseh Kumar Singh and
Sanjay Singh assaulted Hari Lal Singh
with lathis and caused injuries to him at
the tube well of Dadan Singh in village
Ranipur. In respect of this incident, Crime
No.
91
of
1997
under
sections
323/325/504 I.P.C. was registered at
Police Station Ranipur, District Mau. The
said incident disturbed the public order.
The shops were closed and the people
started taking shelter to save their lives.

4. The third ground is that on
5.1.2002 at about 3 P.M. in Ranipur he
along with his associate Shiv Prasad
Singh assaulted Muvattaer Raza (tenant of
Shiv Prasad Singh) at his clinic under his
tenancy, though in respect of the tenancy
a case was also pending. He was first
attacked with rods and thereafter he was
shot in his abdomen. While fleeing, each
of them fired two shots for scaring away
all those nearby, creating an atmosphere
of terror. People started shutting down
their shops and ran hither and thither to
save themselves. The public order was
greatly disturbed. The victim being of
minority community, communal tension
erupted. Crime no. 4 of 2002 under
section 307 I.P.C. and crimes no 5 and 6
of 2002 under section 25 arms Act came
to be registered with regard to this
incident. He and his associate were
allegedly arrested after being chased for a
short distance and illicit weapons were
recovered.

5. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged. We have heard Sri
H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned counsel appearing for
Union of India - respondent no. 1 and
learned A.G.A. for respondents no.2 to 4.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1 All] Ranveer Singh alias Guddu Singh Vs. U.O.I. Ministry of Home Affairs and others
91
6. It is urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the grounds on
which the detention order has been passed
could, at the best, relate to law and order
but not to public order. It has also been
urged that the first incident of 1995 was
too stale to provide a ground for passing
the
impugned
detention
order
on
14.1.2002 on the other hand, learned
A.G.A. has made reference to Section 5 A
of the National Security Act that the
grounds of detention are severable. His
submission is that the detention order can
even be passed on the basis of a single
incident. He has also referred to the case
of Kamal Pramanik Vs. State of West
Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 730) to strengthen
his argument that gap between the
incidents providing the grounds for
passing the impugned detention order is
not material. In that case, the detention
order had been passed after about a year
after happening of the alleged incidents.
The detention order was necessitated
because Criminal cases could not proceed
and the detenue was discharged, he being
a dangerous person against whom the
witnesses were afraid to depose.

7. As regard the incident of 1997,
the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that he had already been
acquitted in that case which had earlier
been taken down as a non-cognizable
offence, but was later converted, inter
alia, under section 325 I.P.C. The parties
had come to a compromise and the
offence had been compounded as per the
provisions of Cr.P.C. The copy of the
acquittal order dated 23.3.1999 passed by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau on the
basis of the compromise of the parties has
been filed as Annexure 8 to the writ
petition. The submission, therefore, is that
the said incident of 1997 could not be
taken as a ground for detaining the
petitioner under the National Security
Act.

8. The grounds of detention, indeed,
are severable as provided by section 5 A
of National Security Act and it is the
established position that a single incident
may form the foundation for passing the
detention order, provided it is relatable to
public order. The question whether a
person has only committed breach of law
and order or has acted in a manner likely
to cause disturbance of the public order is
a question of degree and the extent of the
reach of the act upon the society. An act
by itself is not determinant of its own
gravity. In its quality, it may not differ
from another but in its potentiality it may
be very different. Similar acts in different
contexts affect differently law and order
on the one hand and the public order on
the other. It is always a question of degree
of the harm and its effect upon the
community. An individual act can be a
ground of detention only if it leads to
disturbance of the current of life of the
community so as to amount a disturbance
of the public order and not if it affects
merely an individual, leaving the even
tempo of the life of the society
undisturbed.

9. In the present case, there is no
material to indicate that by the first
incident of 1995, the public order and
even tempo of the society was disturbed.
So is the case with the third incident of
2002 also. Both the incidents took place
because of personal enmity. In the first
instance, the petitioner had allegedly
opened fire on Kamla Kant, Manager of
an Inter College, because he wanted to
grab some land of the college. The third
incident was also related to personal
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
92 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
grudge that the victim was the tenant of
the petitioner whom he wanted to evict.
The mere fact that the victim belonged to
minority community cannot be taken to
mean
that
the incident kicked up
communal tension.

10. We are of the opinion that the
incident of 1997 in respect of which
concerned parties had compounded the
offence could not be a ground for
detaining the petitioner under the National
Security Act.

11. Our conclusion is that the
incidents
whereupon
the
impugned
detention order is based are not relatable
to disturbance of public order. The
detention of the petitioner under National
Security Act cannot be justified. As such
we allow the writ petition and quash the
detention order in question.

12. It is ordered that the detenue
shall be released forthwith if not wanted
in any other connection.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 2.12.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.44587 of
2002

Praveen Dubey
...Petitioner (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.N. Singh (S.S.C.)
A.G.A.

National Security Act 1980- Section 3 (2)
- Detention Order- The people of the
area have been terrorized by the act of
the petitioner and his associates and
there is terror and panic in the area and
the
even
tempo
of
life
has
been
disturbed as people are not able to come
out of their places and are living under
great strain. Hence in our opinion it is a
case of breach of public order and not
merely law and order. (Held in Para 8 )
Case Law Referred:
A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This Writ petition has been filed
against the impugned detention order
dated 24.5.2002 - Annexure 3 to the
petition under the National Security Act.

2. Heard Counsel for Parties.

3. In the grounds of detention, which
are contained in Annexure-3, it has been
stated that the petitioner has an associate,
namely, Lala alias Kishan, Who has taken
a house at 8 Kusum Vihar, Thana New
Agra, on rent. They have made it as a
place for criminals to collect and plan
murder, dacoity etc. and they have been
doing these activities. Petitioner is also
indulging
in
these
activities..
The
aforesaid
Lala
alias
Kishan
took
employment under M/s Goyal Consultant
and
another
associate
Banwari
got
employment
with
Ganpati Sales in
October 2001 and November 2001
respectively, so that they could find out
the income of those establishments. The
petitioner and his associates Sanju,
Banwari Lala entered into a criminal
conspiracy and they found out that Sanjai
Goyal's father had gone for an operation
on 21.1.2002 to Madras and his mother