# Jasbir Maan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 329
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-04-17
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jasbir-maan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45224
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The National Security
Act,1980 - Section 3 - Power to make
orders detaining certain persons - order
passed under Section 3 (2) of the Act is
not
punitive
in
nature
but
is
only
preventive so that the person may interalia be prevented to act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order- Section3(5) - any order made or
approved by state govt under this section
,state govt. shall, within seven days,
report the fact to the central govt.
together with the grounds on which order
has been made , Section 8 - Grounds of
order of detention to be disclosed to
persons affected by the order , Section 10
- Reference to Advisory board , Section 14
-
Revocation
of
detention
orders
,
Section15 - Temporary release of persons
detained - preventive detention is a device
to offer protection to the society and the
executive can always take recourse to it
where it is satisfied that no other method
would succeed in preventing a person
from
disturbing
the
"public
order"
situation - (Para - 24,40)

Petitioner is a builder - constructed multi-storied
buildings
consisting
of
261
flats
-
transferred/sold about 169 of the said flats by
registered deeds to the public at large -
construction activities are illegal -FIRs lodged
against the petitioner - order of detention
passed by the District Magistrate - in exercise of
powers under Section 3 (2) of the Act directing
for detaining him in order to maintain public
order.(Para -2,3,4,5)

HELD:-
No
scope
for
exercising
our
discretionary power in the matter at hand so as
to disturb the impugned order of preventive
detention. However, as primarily the satisfaction
has been recorded on apprehension that the
activities of the petitioner would affect the
"public order", we leave it open for the
petitioner to apply for the revocation of the
order of preventive detention or for his
temporary release in accordance with the
provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Act which
may be considered expeditiously subject to
conditions as permitted in law.(Para - 44)

Habeas corpus petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

10 All. Jasbir Maan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
329
is entitled to that right if for any reason he
is not available, like the two becoming
estranged and living apart.

6. Now, there is some issue raised by
the learned counsel for the respondent that
in a custody dispute between the husband
and the wife, the remedy of a writ of
habeas corpus is not appropriate. It is
submitted
that
both
being
natural
guardians, parties should be relegated to
their remedy under Section 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act. It is now settled
in view of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Yashita Sahu vs. State
of Rajasthan and others, (2020) 3 SCC
67 that a dispute about custody between
parents, can be gone into by this Court, in
the exercise of its jurisdiction to issue a
writ of habeas corpus, where one parent
claims that the child is in unlawful custody
of the other.

7. What really is of substance in a
matter about custody of a minor is his/her
welfare. It has become a truism in the law
of guardianship that welfare of the minor is
of paramount consideration. That is the
principle postulated under Section 17 of the
Guardians and Wards Act. The principle
about welfare of the minor being of
paramount consideration in the matter of
appointment of a guardian of the person of
the minor or in a custody matter is
embodied under Section 13 of the Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Thus, this Court has to see where the
welfare of the minor is best secured. It is in
this context, that the Court has spoken to
the minors who are not only of intelligent
years but teenagers, not far away from
majority. They have expressed themselves
eloquently. Much of the words they have
said have been recorded hereinabove
verbatim. In case of minors older in years,
particularly teenagers, their views are of
prime importance and required to be
accorded great weight while judging the
question about their welfare in a custody
dispute. Unless, the choice of a minor of
older years about his guardian or custody
be outrageous or demonstrably against his
interest the Court ought to give effect to it.
If that choice is in favour of one or the
other parent, there is very little scope to
deny it.

8. The stand of the minors does not
leave this Court in any doubt that their
welfare would be best served with their
mother. In fact, it would be a disservice to
the minors, if they were asked to stay with
the father.

9. In this view of the matter, this
Court does not find any good ground to
make the rule absolute. The rule nisi is
discharged.

10. The petition is dismissed.
----------

(2020)10ILR A329
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1100 of 2019

Jasbir Maan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh, Sri Ishwar Chandra
Tyagi, Sri Rakesh Pande, Sri Vishakha
Pande
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Raj Kumari Devi

(A) Criminal Law - The National Security
Act,1980 - Section 3 - Power to make
orders detaining certain persons - order
passed under Section 3 (2) of the Act is
not
punitive
in
nature
but
is
only
preventive so that the person may interalia be prevented to act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order- Section3(5) - any order made or
approved by state govt under this section
,state govt. shall, within seven days,
report the fact to the central govt.
together with the grounds on which order
has been made , Section 8 - Grounds of
order of detention to be disclosed to
persons affected by the order , Section 10
- Reference to Advisory board , Section 14
-
Revocation
of
detention
orders
,
Section15 - Temporary release of persons
detained - preventive detention is a device
to offer protection to the society and the
executive can always take recourse to it
where it is satisfied that no other method
would succeed in preventing a person
from
disturbing
the
"public
order"
situation - (Para - 24,40)

Petitioner is a builder - constructed multi-storied
buildings
consisting
of
261
flats
-
transferred/sold about 169 of the said flats by
registered deeds to the public at large -
construction activities are illegal -FIRs lodged
against the petitioner - order of detention
passed by the District Magistrate - in exercise of
powers under Section 3 (2) of the Act directing
for detaining him in order to maintain public
order.(Para -2,3,4,5)

HELD:-
No
scope
for
exercising
our
discretionary power in the matter at hand so as
to disturb the impugned order of preventive
detention. However, as primarily the satisfaction
has been recorded on apprehension that the
activities of the petitioner would affect the
"public order", we leave it open for the
petitioner to apply for the revocation of the
order of preventive detention or for his
temporary release in accordance with the
provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Act which
may be considered expeditiously subject to
conditions as permitted in law.(Para - 44)

Habeas corpus petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Ashok Kumar Vs Delhi Administration & ors.,
AIR 1982 SC 1143

2. Smt. Angoori Devi for Ram Ratan Vs UOI &
ors., AIR 1989 SC 371

3. Ayya @ Ayub Vs St. of U.P. , AIR 1989 SC
364

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
& Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. The petitioner Jasbir Maan through
his wife Smt. Anila Maan has preferred this
petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus calling upon the respondents to
produce the corpus of the petitioner and to
release him from the alleged unlawful
detention under the National Security Act
(hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The
petitioner has also prayed for the quashing
of the detention order dated 15.10.2019
passed by the District Magistrate, Gautam
Buddh Nagar for detaining the petitioner
under Section 3 (2) of the Act.

2. The petitioner is a builder having
its organisation Maan Properties and
Developers. He had constructed multistoried buildings consisting of 261 flats on
Khasra No. 35/46/164 in village Shahberi,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar sometime in
the year 2017-18. He had transferred/sold
about 169 of the said flats by registered
deeds to the public at large.

3. It is alleged that his construction
activities are illegal and that he had raised
constructions of the above multi-storied
buildings illegally on the land acquired by
10 All. Jasbir Maan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331
the
Greater
NOIDA
Industrial
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred to "GNIDA") by unauthorizedly
purchasing it from the tenure-holders by
using substandard material in violation of
the
bye-laws
without
getting
the
layout/map sanctioned.

4. In connection with the aforesaid
activities, it appears that various FIRs were
lodged against the petitioner on 16.10.2018
registered as Case Crime No. 968 of 2018;
on 23.11.2018 registered as Case Crime
No. 1186 of 2018; on 30.09.2019 registered
as Case Crime No. 1094 of 2019.

5. The petitioner when in jail in
connection with one of the aforesaid cases
i.e. Case Crime No. 1094 of 2019 was
served with the impugned order of
detention dated 15.10.2019 passed by the
District Magistrate in exercise of powers
under Section 3 (2) of the Act directing for
detaining him in order to maintain public
order.

6. The detention order was followed
by the grounds of detention which were
duly communicated to the petitioner as
contemplated under Section 8 of the Act to
enable him to represent.

7. The grounds of detention are very
comprehensive and have been enclosed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The
aforesaid grounds narrate in detail the facts
leading to the passing of the above
detention order. It clearly states that the
GNIDA in the year 1994 in pursuance to its
proclaimed activities started acquisition of
land of village Shahberi. The acquisition so
started on being challenged in the High
Court was quashed on 12.05.2011 which
order attained finality. Thus, GNIDA
restarted fresh acquisition proceedings in
the year 2013 whereupon again writ
petitions were filed in the High Court and
an interim order was passed in one of the
writ petitions on 16.10.2014 directing for
the maintenance of status-quo. The other
writ petitions were tagged with it.

8. The aforesaid interim order was
well publicized by putting notices but the
petitioner illegally went on purchasing the
said land from the villagers and raised
constructions without getting the land use
changed from the agricultural to residential
or abadi. At least 431 flats in all were
constructed by various builders including
the petitioner with substandard material as
a result, two of the building/towers of one
of
the
other
builders
collapsed
on
17.07.2018 and 9 people lost their lives. In
connection with it, 72 FIRs were lodged
against 262 persons. On account of the
above incident, there was mass unrest
leading to "dharna pradarshan" by the
public. The builders provoked the people
for such "dharna pradarshan" which
disturbed the peace and tranquility of the
area.

9. Insofar as the petitioner is
concerned, it has been stated that he
constructed 261 flats in village Shahberi on
Khasra Nos. 45/40/64 in the year 2017-18.
All the said constructions are illegal and
substandard. The constructions were raised
by
him
without
any
sanction
and
permission of the GNIDA. The petitioner
has sold 169 flats without obtaining
completion certificates. There is likelihood
of these buildings falling down resulting in
human casualties as had happened in the
case of two other towers mentioned above.

10. It is alleged that in view of the
aforesaid acts of the petitioner, the District
Magistrate
is
satisfied
that
in
case
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner is released from jail, he would
start selling the remaining flats and would
provoke the buyers and the people to sit on
"dharna pradarshan" causing disturbance
to public order. Thus, in order to prevent
him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order, it is
necessary that he be detained under Section
3 (2) of the Act.

11. The State of U.P. has filed counter
affidavit sworn by the Under Secretary
(Home), Confidential Department, U.P.
Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. It is stated that
the detention order dated 15.10.2018 along
with the ground of detention and other
connected documents on being forwarded
by the District Magistrate, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, were received on 16.10.2019 by the
State Government. The State Government
after examining every aspect of the matter,
approved the same on 24.10.2019 within 12
days and the approval was communicated
to the petitioner on 25.10.2019 through the
district authorities, both by letter and
radiogram.

12. The copy of the detention order
along with grounds of detention and
connected documents were also sent to the
Central Government by speed-post on
25.10.2019 within 7 days of receiving the
approval of the State Government in
accordance with Section 3 (5) of the Act.

13. The case of the petitioner was
referred to the U.P. Advisory Board
(Detention),
Lucknow
on
25.10.2019
within the stipulated period of three days as
required under Section 10 the Act along
with
all
necessary
documents.
The
petitioner
appeared
for
hearing
on
08.11.2019 before the Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board upon hearing the petitioner
in person submitted his report opining that
there is sufficient cause for the preventive
detention of the petitioner under the Act
and accordingly, confirmed the detention
order.

14. The petitioner was given full and
complete
opportunity
of
making
representation against his detention. He
submitted his representation on 26.10.2019
which was duly received by the State
Government with the covering letter of the
District Magistrate. The representation with
the comments was also sent to the Central
Government. It was examined by the State
Government without any delay and was
finally
rejected
on
08.11.2019.
The
rejection
was
communicated
to
the
petitioner through the district authorities.

15. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances,
stated
in
the
counter
affidavit of the State, the detention order
was passed by the District Magistrate on
his satisfaction that the detention of the
petitioner is necessary to prevent him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. At the same
time, the complete procedure specified not
only for the passing detention order and in
confirming it but in allowing opportunity to
the petitioner to make representation and to
deal with it swiftly without loss of any time
was duly followed.

16. The counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent No.4, Superintendent
(Jail), Gautam Buddh Nagar states that the
petitioner was in judicial custody in
connection with the Case Crime No. 1094
of 2019 when the detention order dated
15.10.2019 was passed which along with
the grounds of detention and relevant
material was served upon him on the same
day. He was given full opportunity to
submit
his
representation
which
he
10 All. Jasbir Maan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
submitted
on
26.10.2019.
The
representation was rejected by the District
Magistrate, State Government and Central
Government and the petitioner was duly
informed of it. The detention order was
approved/confirmed
by
the
State
Government.

17. The aforesaid facts disclosed in
the counter affidavit of respondent No.4
establishes that the entire procedure for
approving and confirming the detention
order
and
regarding
affording
of
opportunity to the petitioner to make a
representation and for its consideration
were duly followed within time specified
without causing unnecessary delay.

18. A counter affidavit has also been
filed on behalf of Union of India. It apart
from
other
things
states
that
the
representation
of
the
petitioner
was
processed for consideration by the Union
Home Secretary who was authorized by the
Union Home Minister to decide such
representations. Finally the representation
was rejected on 20.11.2019 and a wireless
message to that effect was sent to the State
Government, Superintendent (Jail), Gautam
Buddh Nagar and District Magistrate,
Gautam Buddh Nagar and the petitioner.
The second representation was also rejected
and its rejection was also duly informed to
petitioner.

19. It is in the above background that
we have heard Sri Rakesh Pande, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Jyoti Kumar Singh
for the petitioner, learned A.G.A., Mrs. Raj
Kumari Devi, learned counsel for Union of
India, respondent No.6 and Ms. Anjali
Upadhyay, learned counsel for GNIDA.

20. The primary argument raised by
Sri Pande for assailing the detention order
is that the detention stands completely
vitiated as there is no threat to public order.
The apprehension of the District Magistrate
in the light of collapse of two towers earlier
is baseless. The petitioner alone has been
singled out in passing the detention order as
despite 72 FIRs and involvement of 262
accused,
no
other
person
has
been
subjected to such preventive detention.

21. Ms. Anjali Upadhyay supporting
the contentions put forth on behalf of the
State authorities and the Union of India
submitted that it is at the behest of the
Greater NOIDA that such an action has
been taken against the petitioner and that it
is necessary to do so as despite all efforts of
Greater NOIDA, the petitioner refused to
stop his illegal activities and that his
actions were likely to disturb the "public
order".

22. The argument that the petitioner
alone has been singled out has no legs to
stand as there is no parity in illegality. If
other persons with similar record or
likelihood to disturb the public order, have
been left out and have not been kept in
preventive detention, it does not mean that
the petitioner also cannot be detained and
be allowed to rome about freely giving him
a chance to act in a manner which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of the public
order.

23. Now, in the light of the respective
submissions, the only aspect which requires
consideration is whether the impugned
order of preventive detention has been
passed on the proper satisfaction of the
detaining authority/State Government that
it is necessary to prevent the petitioner
from acting in any manner prejudicial to
the
maintenance
of
"public
order"
inasmuch as the submission is that the
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
activities
of
the
petitioner
may
be
somewhat illegal but are not in any way
affecting the maintenance of "public order".

24. It may be made clear that the
impugned order passed under Section 3 (2)
of the Act is not punitive in nature but is
only preventive so that the person may
inter-alia be prevented to act in a manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. The order of preventive detention is
liable to be passed under Section 3 of the
Act inter-alia on three counts if the Central
or the State Governments are satisfied that
the activities of any person are (i)
prejudicial to the security of the State; (ii)
prejudicial to the maintenance of "public
order";
and
(iii)
prejudicial
to
the
maintenance of supplies and services
essential to the needy.

25. In the case at hand, we are
concerned with the preventive detention on
the ground of activities of the petitioner
prejudicial to the maintenance of the
"public order" i.e. one of the three grounds
specified under Section 3(2) of the Act.

26. The language used for making
such a preventive detention is, if simply put
after ignoring the unnecessary part would
read as under-:

The State Government, if satisfied
with respect to any person that with the
view to prevent him from acting in any
manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of
the public order, if necessary, so to do,
make an order that such person be
detained.

27.

Satisfaction
of
the
State
Government that it is necessary to detain a
person in order to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the "public
order" is an essential condition for passing
such a preventive order. It is in the light of
the above language used in Section 3 (2) of
the Act that we have to examine if a case of
preventive detention of the petitioner is
made out from the grounds of detention so
as to satisfy the State Government that it is
necessary to detain him to prevent him
from acting in any manner which may
disturb the "public order".

28. Therefore, to invoke the provision
of Section 3(2) of the Act, the satisfaction
of the State Government so to prevent a
person from acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of "public order" are
two essential conditions. The first issue
therefore is as to whether the activities of
the petitioner are within the realm of the
"public order" or "law and order".

29. The "public order" has not been
defined under the Act but it was a matter of
consideration before the Apex Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar1, which was also a
case under the aforesaid Act. The Court
therein made a distinction between the two
concepts of "public order" and "law and
order" and held that in the case of "law and
order", it affects specific individuals only
while in the case of "public order", it has
the potentiality of disturbing the normal
tempo of the life of the community. The
Apex Court observed as under-:

"The true distinction between the
areas of 'public order' and 'law and order'
lies not in the nature or quality of the act,
but in the degree and extent of its reach
upon society. The distinction between the
two concepts of 'law and order' and 'public
order' is a fine one but this does not mean
that there can be no overlapping. Acts
similar in nature but committed in different
contexts and circumstances might cause
10 All. Jasbir Maan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
335
different reactions. In one case it might
affect
specific
individuals
only
and
therefore touch the problem of law and
order, while in another it might affect
public order. The act by itself therefore is
not determinant of its own gravity. It is the
potentiality of the act to disturb the even
tempo of the life of the community which
makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order."

30. The meaning of "public order"
again came up for consideration in Smt.
Angoori Devi2 and it was opined that if the
act is confined to individual without
directly or indirectly affecting the life of
the community, it may be a matter of "law
and order" only but where the gravity of the
act is otherwise and likely to endanger the
public tranquillity, it may fall within the
orbit of "public order".

31. In Ayya3, it was observed that
what might be otherwise simple "law and
order" situation, it might assume the gravity
and mischief of "public order" by reason
alone of the manner or circumstances in
which it is carried out.

32. In other words, at times even simple
acts of "law and order" problem on account
of their gravity and the manner or
circumstances in which they occur may result
in disturbing the "public order" if they create
a sense of insecurity in the public mind.

33. In view of the above, the distinction
between "law and order" and "public order"
is very fine and at times it may be
overlapping.

34. It is in the light of the above legal
position that we have been called upon to
examine if the acts of the petitioner as
disclosed in the grounds of detention are in
context with the maintenance of "public
order" or they relate to the maintenance of
"law and order" situation.

35. The facts and the grounds stated in
the grounds of detention communicated to the
petitioner by an large may be in connection
with the illegalities committed by the
petitioner in purchasing the acquired land of
the
GNIDA,
raising
unauthorized
constructions with substandard material and
as such may fall within the ambit of the "law
and order" situation but at the same time, the
satisfaction of the District Magistrate as to the
apprehension that on account of substandard
unauthorized constructions, there may be a
possibility of some similar incident as had
happened in the past in connection with some
other building causing some human casualty
resulting in public outrage is certainly a
matter concerning "public order", affecting
the even tempo of public life.

36. Moreover, the likelihood of the
petitioner indulging in illegal sale of the
remaining flats and in provocating the
buyers/public at large to agitate and sit on
"dharna pradharshan" to get these illegal
constructions regularized or compounded,
would ultimately disturb the tranquillity and
the peace of the locality, and is sufficient
enough to make out a case of disturbance of
"public order".

37. The relevant part of the impugned
order recording the precise ground and
satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner
are prejudicial to the public order is
reproduced hereinbelow for convenience-:

"उपरोक्त
facts
and
circumstances से स्पस्ट् है की िा० उच्च
न्यायलय के द्वारा यथान्धस्थमत के आदेश के
उपरांत भी मबिा ग्रेटर िॉएडा प्रामधकरण
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
के ले-आउट प्लाि पास कराये, मबिा भवि
का िक्शा पास कराये आपके द्वारा भविों
का मििाषण मकया गया। अमवमधक रूप से
बिाये गए फ्लैट्स जो मकसी प्रकार की
structural stability का प्रिाण पत्र प्राप्त
मकये मबिा इि किजोर भविों को वैध
और िजबूत बताते हुए मिदोर् एवं आवास
आवस्यक्ताओं के कारि मववश खरीदारों
को व्यापक स्तर पर बेर्े गए है। १७
जुलाई २०१८ मजसिे की इसी क्षेत्र िें
भविों के मगरिे से ०९ लोगो की िृत्यु हुई
है की तरह कभी कोई दुघषटिा व्यापक
स्तर पर घट सकती है। आपिे लगभग ९२
फ्लैट्स अमभलेखों महसाब से अभी तक
मवक्रय िहीं मकये है, को जेल से छूटिे के
बाद इन्हे बेर्िे का पूरा प्रयास रहेगा।
मपछले एक वर्ष से ग्राि शाहबेरी िें ऐसी
मबन्धडंगो को मियमित करिे के मलए वहा
के स्थािीय बायसष द्वारा लगातार आंदोलि
मकया जा रहा है। यह आंदोलि कई
प्रकार से पन्धिक आडषर को पूरी तरह से
मडस्ट्बष करिे की न्धस्थमत िें भी पररवमतषत
होता है। ऐसे भी तथ्य आ रहे है मजसिे
आप जैसे मबडसष स्थािीय बायसष को
उकसाकर इस तरह के आंदोलि करवा
रहे है। हाल ही िें ग्रेटर िॉएडा प्रामधकरण
द्वारा आई० आई० टी० मदल्ली को इि
भविों के structural stability के बारे िें
शीघ्र ही स्ट्डी करिे के मलए कायष मदया
गया है जो पूणष हो र्ूका है, अगले कुछ ही
मदिों िें यह स्ट्डी ररपोटष प्राप्त हो जाएगी
परन्तु व्यापक स्तर पर मवमभन्न िाध्यिों से
जिता के बीर् िें perception बिा है, वह
भविों के काफी किजोर होिे के तथ्य की
ओर इंमगत कर रहे है इससे लोक जीवि
िें भय के वातावरण का संर्ार हो रहा है,
ऐसी न्धस्थमत िें उपरोक्त
facts
and
circumstances के आधार पर िेरा यह
मिमश्चत ित है की यमद आप छूटकर बाहर
आएंगे तो अपिे बर्े हुए भविों/फ्लैट्स को
बेर्िे का पूरा प्रयास करेंगे। आप स्थािीय
बायसष को इि भविों के मियमित करिे के
वतषिाि आंदोलि को उकसािे का प्रयास
भी करेंगे, आप आई० आई० टी० मदल्ली
द्वारा की जा रही तथ्यात्मक स्ट्डी को
influence करिे का प्रयास करेंगे। इि
सभी न्धस्थमतयों िें लोक व्यवस्था व्यवधामित
होिे की व्यापक सम्भाविा है। उपरोक्त
पररन्धस्थमतयों िें balance of convenience भी
आपके पक्ष िें िहीं है तथा आपके सभी
कृत्य एवं संभामवत कृत्य जैसा की
उपरोक्त वमणषत मकया गया है, सभी प्रकार
से Maintenance of Public Order के
prejudicial है, तथा लोक महत के एवं लोक
व्यवस्था के सवषधा प्रमतकूल है।"

38. Accordingly, in our opinion the
grounds of detention disclose not only "law
and order" problem but also the problem of
"public order" which is likely to be caused
by the activities of the petitioner.

39. The nature and gravity of the
actions of the petitioner though in strict
sense may be concerning "law and order"
situation but ultimately would be affecting
the "public order".

40. It is tirite to mention here that
preventive detention is a device to offer
protection
to
the
society
and
the
executive can always take recourse to it
where it is satisfied that no other method
would succeed in preventing a person
from
disturbing
the
"public
order"
situation.
10 All. In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine Centres And for providing Better Treatment to
 Corona Positive Vs. State of U.P.
337

41. The subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority with regard to the action
of preventive detention has to be taken
keeping in mind the danger to liberties of the
people and if the actions or the activities of
the person have serious repercussions not
merely on "law and order" but on "public
order", the satisfaction so recorded cannot be
lightly interfered by the Court of Law unless
it is arbitrary or unreasonable.

42. In the case at hand, the grounds of
detention elaborately narrate the facts leading
to the order of detention and the grounds are
precise, pertinent, proximate and relevant for
recording subjective satisfaction and thus, it
cannot be said that the detaining authority has
not applied its judicious mind in coming to
the conclusion that the activities of the
petitioner are prejudicial in nature to the
maintenance of "public order".

43. It may not be out of context to
remind that the Court in exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction does not normally
interfere with the subjective satisfaction
recorded by the detaining authority except in
exceptional circumstances inasmuch as the
Court is not empowered to substitute its own
opinion for that of the detaining authority. No
exceptional
circumstances
have
been
established to permit interference with the
subjective satisfaction recorded by the
District Magistrate in passing the order of
preventive detention of the petitioner.

44. Accordingly, we do not find any
scope for exercising our discretionary power
in the matter at hand so as to disturb the
impugned order of preventive detention.
However, as primarily the satisfaction has
been recorded on apprehension that the
activities of the petitioner would affect the
"public order", we leave it open for the
petitioner to apply for the revocation of the
order of preventive detention or for his
temporary release in accordance with the
provisions of Section 14 and 15 of the Act
which may be considered expeditiously
subject to conditions as permitted in law.

45. No other point was raised and
argued before us.

46. The writ petition, accordingly, is
devoid of merit and is dismissed.
----------
(2020)10ILR A337
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

PIL No. 574 of 2020
with
PIL No. 1289 of 2019

In-Re Inhuman Condition at Quarantine
Centres
And
for
providing
Better
Treatment to Corona Positive ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gaurav Kumar Gaur, Sri Aditya Singh
Parihar, Sri Amitanshu Gour, Sri Jitendra
Kumar, Sri Katyayini, Sri Rahul Sahai, Sri
Rishu Mishra, Sri S.P.S. Chauhan, Sri
Satyaveer Singh, Sri Shailendra Garg,
Sunita Sharma, Sri Shwetashwa Agarwal,
Sri Uttar Kumar Goswami, Sri Arvind Kumar
Goswami

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Sri Dhiraj Singh, Sri Hari Nath
Tripathi,
Purnendu
Kumar
Singh,
Sri
Satyavrat Sahai, Sri Sunil Dutt Kautilya

Civil Law - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - U.P. Municipal