# Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 309
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-04
- **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 38414 of 2001
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39823
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 226- Detention
order- challenged on the ground of 5
days
delay
in
deciding
the
representation- Petitioner usurped the
Gaon Sabha Land - depriving general
Public from use- held- effecting Public
life. Detention order is proper.
Held- Para 5
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that it is a case of law and
order and not public order. We do not
agree with this submission. Apparently
the petitioner with his associates had
grabbed the Gram Sabha property and
the deceased was trying to get it
released. It is well known that in Uttar
Pradesh almost the entire land of the
Gram Sabha has been grabbed by the
people having muscle power and money.
The land of the Gram Sabha is meant to
be used for serving the people of the
village, particularly the poor people by
setting up a school or dispensary or cold
storage or for some other such purpose,
but instead people with power or money
have grabbed the entire land of the Gram
Sabha and the result is that the poor
people of the Villages are deprived of the
use of such land.

## Text

2 All] Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
309
3.
1985 All.L.J. 1343 Ram Saran vs.
Assistant Director of (Consolidation)
and others.

4.
1990 R.D. page 160 Ram Surat and
others vs. Gram Sabha, Nagar, Haraiya
Mirzapur and others.

Let the record of this writ petition be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice
for constituting a larger Bench.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 4.2.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 38414 of
2001

Rakesh Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri I.M. Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava
S.C.
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, 226- Detention
order- challenged on the ground of 5
days
delay
in
deciding
the
representation- Petitioner usurped the
Gaon Sabha Land - depriving general
Public from use- held- effecting Public
life. Detention order is proper.
Held- Para 5
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that it is a case of law and
order and not public order. We do not
agree with this submission. Apparently
the petitioner with his associates had
grabbed the Gram Sabha property and
the deceased was trying to get it
released. It is well known that in Uttar
Pradesh almost the entire land of the
Gram Sabha has been grabbed by the
people having muscle power and money.
The land of the Gram Sabha is meant to
be used for serving the people of the
village, particularly the poor people by
setting up a school or dispensary or cold
storage or for some other such purpose,
but instead people with power or money
have grabbed the entire land of the Gram
Sabha and the result is that the poor
people of the Villages are deprived of the
use of such land.

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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned detention order dated 23.8.2001
Annexure-1 to the petition passed under
the N.S.A. A perusal of the grounds of
detention shows that it is alleged that on
27.6.2001 the petitioner and his two
associates at about 4.30 P.M. shot dead
one Sunil Kumar Singh on National High
Way because Sunil Kumar Singh was
objecting to the petitioner getting the two
ponds of the Gram Sabha released and
had been doing pairvi to get the illegal
possession of the petitioner over the said
ponds vacated. Litigation was going on in
this connection in various courts. The
petitioner after the murder went with a
revolver in his hand firing in the air to
create panic and terror in the public on the
road, and due to terror in the locality the
shopkeepers closed their shops. The
residents of the village ran to their fields
and starting running here and there. There
was terror in the area. There are
allegations that the petitioner had earlier
committed several crimes under various
provisions of the Indian Penal Code
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
310
including crimes under Sections 302, 307
I.P.C. etc.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the District Magistrate in which it has
been stated that the District Magistrate
was fully satisfied and when it was found
necessary only then the preventive action
was taken against the petitioner under the
National
Security
Act
because
the
activities of the petitioner had created
terror and panic in the area.

3. A counter affidavit has also been
filed by the Deputy Jailor about the
representation submitted by the petitioner.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that the name of one Indra Sen
has
been
introduced
in
the
first
information
report
which
was
subsequently removed and in his place the
name of his younger brother Ugra Sen has
been introduced. This has been explained
in Para 7 of the counter affidavit of the
District Magistrate wherein it has been
stated that this mistake occurred due to
hurry. At any event the petitioner is
neither Ugra Sen Singh nor Indra Sen
Singh and hence that mistake will not
affect the case against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that there was 8 days delay
in deciding the representation. We are of
the opinion that the law of habeas corpus
should not be made over technical. Delay
of 8 days or so some times take place in
deciding the representation but that delay
in our opinion will not necessarily vitiate
the detention order. That will depend on
the facts of each case. The representation
was submitted on 30.8.2000 which was
received in the office of the District
Magistrate on 31.8.2000 who called for a
report from the police on 1.9.2000. On
receipt of the police report, the District
Magistrate sent the papers to the State
Govt. which was received by the State
Govt. on 3.9.2000 (vide paragraph 10 of
the counter affidavit of the District
Magistrate) and that was sent to the
Advisory Board on 4.9.2000. On 5.9.2000
it was forwarded to the State Govt. and
the State Govt. submitted it to the
Secretary
and
the
Secretary
after
examination
sent
it
to
the
State
Government and it was rejected on
8.9.2000. Thus there is no delay as
submitted by the learned govt. counsel.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that it is a case of law and order
and not public order. We do not agree
with this submission. Apparently the
petitioner with his associates had grabbed
the Gram Sabha property and the
deceased was trying to get it released. It is
well known that in Uttar Pradesh almost
the entire land of the Gram Sabha has
been grabbed by the people having
muscle power and money. The land of the
Gram Sabha is meant to be used for
serving the people of the village,
particularly the poor people by setting up
a school or dispensary or cold storage or
for some other such purpose, but instead
people with power or money have
grabbed the entire land of the Gram Sabha
in U.P. and the result is that the poor
people of the Villages are deprived of the
use of such land.

We are clearly of the view that the
incident relates to public order as it
created panic and terror in the locality and
the petitioner was illegally trying to resist
efforts to release the Gram Sabha land
grabbed by him. Thus there is no force in
this petition and it is dismissed.
---------
2 All] Balram Vs. State of U.P. and others
311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.2.2002

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6902 of 2002

Balram

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.K. Trivedi
Sri O.P. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Krishan
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Recovery of Public money-the guarantor
and the Chief debtor both are equally
liable. It is sole discretion of creditor to
proceed either of them- but No recovery
charges shall be realized.

Held- Para 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that respondents nos. 2 and 3
should first proceed against the Principal
debtor before proceeding against the
guarantor. There is no such requirement
in law, and hence we cannot give any
such direction. It is the discretion of the
creditor whether to proceed against the
Principal debtor or the guarantor, we,
however, direct that no recovery charges
shall be realized from the petitioner.

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

1. Heard Sri N.K. Trivedi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prakash
Krishan,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
recovery
certificate
dated
22.1.2002. The petitioner is a guarantor of
the loan granted to Shiv Pal Singh by
respondent no. 3. It is well settled that the
liability of the guarantor is co-extensive
with that of the principal debtor. Hence
we cannot interfere with the impugned
recovery.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that respondents nos. 2 and
3 should first proceed against the
Principal debtor before proceeding against
the
guarantor.
There
is
no
such
requirement in law, and hence we cannot
give any such direction. It is the discretion
of the creditor whether to proceed against
the principal debtor or the guarantor. We,
however, direct that no recovery charges
shall be realized from the petition.

4. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of finally.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2002

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8248 of 2002

Shambhu Dayal

...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Cabinet Secretary
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha
Sri P.S. Bhagel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajeet Kumar