# Rahmat Ali v. State of U.P. and another - **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 387 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000-08-16 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rahmat-ali-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-39749 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 387 That apart if statute makes Section 5 or any other provisions of the Limitation Act applicable in respect of any application, appeal or revision but in respect of other applications those section of the Limitation Act have not been excluded, it will be taken that they have been excluded by the legislature. In the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs M/s Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, 1975 U.P.T.C. 297, the court considering the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act held that the function of the legislature to exclude the unrestricted application of the principles of Section 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act is manifestly clear. The Court observed as follows: "Be that as it may, from the scheme and language of Section 10, the intention of the Legislature to exclude the unrestricted application of the principles of Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act is manifestly clear. These provisions of the Limitation Act which the legislature did not, after due application of mind, incorporate in the Sales Tax Act, Cannot be imported into it by analogy..." 6. Lastly the compounding scheme was sponsored by the State Government under Section 7-D of the Act. The Scheme has given a cut off date. If any persons wants to take advantage of the said Scheme he was to submit an application within that period. The intention of the legislature was obvious as to fixing the time limit. If the period of limitation is extended by applying the principles laid down under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court could extend the period of the Scheme which was not envisaged by the State Government. In view of the above, the impugned order does not require any interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However the parties shall bear their own costs. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7('$//$+$%$' '$7('$//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 0$5.$1'(< .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 0$5.$1'(< .$7-8 - 7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 - 7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 - +DEHDV &RUSXV :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 5DKPDW $OL «3HWLWLRQHU ,Q -DLO 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6KUL 31 7ULSDWKL &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV $*$ &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH $Q RUGHU RI GHWHQWLRQ FDQ EH VXVWDLQHG HYHQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI D VROLWDU\ DFW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH QDWXUH DQG JUDYLW\ RI WKH DFW LI LW SUHMXGLFLDOO\ DIIHFWV WKH HYHQ WHPSR RI WKH OLIH RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ KHOG LQ SDUD ,Q WKLV FDVH SXEOLF RUGHU KDV FHUWDLQO\ EHHQ GLVWXUEHG DV FRPPXQDO WHQVLRQ ZDV FUHDWHG DV D UHVXOW RI ZKLFK 3$& KDG WR EH SRVWHG LQ WKH VDLG YLOODJH By the Court 1. Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Counsel 1All] Rahmat Ali V. State of U.P. and another 388 2. The petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 16.8.2000, Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, passed under the National Security Act. We have carefully perused the impugned detention order as well as the grounds of detention of the petitioner and the police report. It appears that the petitioner is a resident of a village in district Basti, having majority of Muslims and only a few houses of Harijans. The allegation is that on 24.7.2000 at about 8 P.M. Kumari Kiran, who is a Harijan of that village, had taken a goat and went inside a room to tie the said goat. At that time the petitioner entered the room and bolted it from inside and after threatening Kumari Kiran raped her. It is alleged that Kumari Kiran was about 14 years of age. Some people tried to intervene when Kumari Kiran started screaming and these persons caught hold of the petitioner but then his relations came and freed him forcibly and threatened that if those Harijans do anything they will be murdered. 3. As a result of the said incident communal tension was created and public order broke down and consequently one and a half action of P.A.C. has to be posted in the village. 4. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that this is a case of law and order and not public order. We do not agree with this submission. It is the duty of every person of the majority community in a locality to see to it that members of the minority community are not in any way harassed. In the present case the majority community in the said village is of Muslims and only a few families consisting of Harijans reside there. It was, therefore, the duty of the persons like the petitioner belonging to Muslim community to see to it that Harijans did not feel insecure and are not harassed in any way. Similarly the majority community happened to be Hindus. It would be the duty of Hindus to see that members of the minority community are not harassed. 5. In this case, public order has certainly been disturbed as communal tension was created as a result of which P.A.C. had to be posted in the said village. Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and if it is reached the act certainly affects public order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that certain documents were not supplied to the petitioner. These documents which are said to have not been supplied only demonstrate that Kumari Kiran was not of 14 years but 17 years of age. In our opinion, this makes no difference. Surely, it cannot be said that a girl of 14 years cannot be raped but a girl of 17 years can be raped. This is a specious argument and cannot be a serious argument for reconsideration. 7. The learned counsel of the petitioner relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in Mehrunissa versus State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court page 1861 in which it has been held that non-supply of material documents will vitiate the detention order. Since in our opinion the said documents were not material, hence in this case it will make no difference at all. Hence the above Supreme Court decision is distinguishable. INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001 389 8. The learned Government counsel has relied upon a division Bench decision of this court rendered in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition no. 15791 of 2000. Guddu alias Shamsher versus State of U.P. and others decided on 19.12.2000. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in that decision. 9. In Arun Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1228 it was held that if a girl is molested in a lonely place it will create panic and terror and would be a case of public order. 10. In Bimla Rani Vs. Union of India 1989 (3) J.T. 737, Attorney General of India Vs. A.L. Prajeevan Das. 1994 S.C.C.(Cr.) 1325. Ali Jan Miyan Vs. D.M. AIR 1983 S.C. 1130 etc. it was held that an order of detention can be sustained even on the basis of a solitary act depending on the nature and gravity of the act if it prejudicially affects the even tempo of the life of the community. The same view has been taken by this Court in Vijay Pal Vs. Union of India. 1996 A.C.C. 741. 11. In view of the above there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed. 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< 7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< - - 7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< - 7+( +21·%/( '5 &+$8'+$5< - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6PW ,ODLFKL 'HYL «3HWLWLRQHU 9HUVXV 'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH *RUDNKSXU DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU 6UL 63. 7ULSDWKL 6UL +61 7ULSDWKL 6UL 36 7ULSDWKL 6UL %. 3DQGH\ &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6& 6UL 6DEKDMHHW