# BINOD BIHARI MAHATO v. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 215
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-10-01
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 278 of 1974
- **Bench:** P. N. Bhagwati, R.. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/binod-bihari-mahato-v-state-of-bihar-ors-6290
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

. Mai11tma11ce of I11ternal Security Act, 1971, Sectio11 3(1)(a)(ii)-Petitioner
furni!!Jred with order of detention and the grounds of detention i11 Hindi as
well as i11 English-English version of grounds containin11 the expression "or
the securitv of the State in addition to "the maintenance of the public order"
in the Hindi versio11-0rder of detention, if vitiated,
The petitiorter was arrested at Dhanbad on 6!li March, 1974 and after
l'eing produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he was taken to Bhagalpur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On an application made by the petitioner,
the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner, and an order dated 18th
March,
1974,
was passed for release of the petitioner. On the same day
that is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an order
detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, on the ground that it. was necessary to do so with a view to
preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prej\ldicial to the
m~intenance of public order.
Pursuant to the order of detention, the peti·
tioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released on bail.
At the time of his arrest the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of
detention \Wre served on him together with the grounJs of detention which
were also in Hindi and English versions. After enumerating the grounds, the
Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the District Magistrate
that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the petitioner "is allowed to
remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial
to
the maintenance
of public order" and for prevention of such activities he . considered the
detention of the petitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State"
were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version though
ihey were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner's· representation to
the State Government was· rejected by the Govt. on 24th April, 1974. The
Advisory Board before which the case of the petitioner had been placed by the
State Govt. gave an opportunity to the petitioner to be personally heard and
after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it gave its opinion
0'1, 2nd May,
1974 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of .t:he
petitioner.
After the rejection of the petition
under
Art.
226
of the
Constitution by the High Court. the petitioner filed the present petition under
Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his detention.
It was contended that (i) the recital "or security of the Stale"
in
the
English version of the grounds of detention showed that the District Magis·
.trate did not apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged
in the grounds of detention ag!linst the petitioner or to. the question whether
they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of public
order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate
the order .if detention; '(ii) the first ground in so far as ·it aHeged that the
petitioner was propagating communal hatred between Adivasis and
others
(Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non-Advasis was vague and unintelligible and (iii) the District Magistrate had taken into account
many
more
instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6).
Dismissing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution,
HELD : If the order of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction
of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with
a view to preventine him from acting in a manner pre.iudicial to the mainten·
ance of public order or security of the State, ·it would clearly be an invalid
order. [220 E-F]
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.p.!l.
Kishor,i Mohan Bera v. Tlze State of We.111 Bengal, A.LR. 1972 ~.C. 1.749
and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 300, rehed on.
If it appears in the present case that ~e

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
215
BINOD BIHARI MAHATO
v.
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
October 1, 1974
(P. N. BHAGWATI AND R.. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
. Mai11tma11ce of I11ternal Security Act, 1971, Sectio11 3(1)(a)(ii)-Petitioner
furni!!Jred with order of detention and the grounds of detention i11 Hindi as
well as i11 English-English version of grounds containin11 the expression "or
the securitv of the State in addition to "the maintenance of the public order"
in the Hindi versio11-0rder of detention, if vitiated,
The petitiorter was arrested at Dhanbad on 6!li March, 1974 and after
l'eing produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, he was taken to Bhagalpur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On an application made by the petitioner,
the Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner, and an order dated 18th
March,
1974,
was passed for release of the petitioner. On the same day
that is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an order
detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, on the ground that it. was necessary to do so with a view to
preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prej\ldicial to the
m~intenance of public order.
Pursuant to the order of detention, the peti·
tioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released on bail.
At the time of his arrest the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of
detention \Wre served on him together with the grounJs of detention which
were also in Hindi and English versions. After enumerating the grounds, the
Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the District Magistrate
that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the petitioner "is allowed to
remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial
to
the maintenance
of public order" and for prevention of such activities he . considered the
detention of the petitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State"
were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version though
ihey were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner's· representation to
the State Government was· rejected by the Govt. on 24th April, 1974. The
Advisory Board before which the case of the petitioner had been placed by the
State Govt. gave an opportunity to the petitioner to be personally heard and
after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, it gave its opinion
0'1, 2nd May,
1974 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of .t:he
petitioner.
After the rejection of the petition
under
Art.
226
of the
Constitution by the High Court. the petitioner filed the present petition under
Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his detention.
It was contended that (i) the recital "or security of the Stale"
in
the
English version of the grounds of detention showed that the District Magis·
.trate did not apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged
in the grounds of detention ag!linst the petitioner or to. the question whether
they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of public
order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate
the order .if detention; '(ii) the first ground in so far as ·it aHeged that the
petitioner was propagating communal hatred between Adivasis and
others
(Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non-Advasis was vague and unintelligible and (iii) the District Magistrate had taken into account
many
more
instances than those set out in grounds (2) and (6).
Dismissing the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution,
HELD : If the order of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction
of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner with
a view to preventine him from acting in a manner pre.iudicial to the mainten·
ance of public order or security of the State, ·it would clearly be an invalid
order. [220 E-F]
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.p.!l.
Kishor,i Mohan Bera v. Tlze State of We.111 Bengal, A.LR. 1972 ~.C. 1.749
and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 300, rehed on.
If it appears in the present case that ~e or.der of de~ention made by the
District Magistrate was based 011 the
s~psfac!1on that 1t ~as necess~y .. to
detain the petitioner with a view preventmg him from ca~rymg on activ1ues
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the security of t~e St~te, .1t
would have to be struck down as invalid. But there is no such mfirm1ty ID
the otder of detention. It is only in the English version of the groun~ ~f
detention that the words "or security of the State'' has been added. This 1s
obviously the result of inadvertence and no argument can be founded upon it.
In the first place, Hindi being the officfal language of the State, it
IS the
Hindi versim, of the grounds of detention whici) must !Je regarded as authentic and the validity of the detention must be judged with reference to the
Hindi version of the grounds and not the English version. Secondly, even
on the Erigiish version of the grounds of detention, it is clear that at the
end of each of the grounds it is stated in so ma.ny words that the acts of the
petitioner were prejudicial t.o the maintenance of public order and ther~ is
no reference to prejudice to the security of the State. It is only in the con"
clusion based on these facts that there is a recital of the satisfaction that if
the petitioner is allowed to remain at large, he would indulge in activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or the security Of the State.
The words "or the securit yof the State" are obviously incongruous in the
context. There can be no doubt that these words have crept in the English
version of the grounds of detention through some mistake. The order of
detention cannot be invalidated on the basis of such an obvious error, ignoring the order of detention in both its Hindi and English versions, ·the Hindi
ve1sion of the ~rounds and the totality of the context so far as the English
version is concerned. [220 E-F; 221 E-H]
(ii) The petitioner was, according to the allegation contained in the first
grounct. stirring hatred between Adivasis and out~i<.:ers. He was also propagating hatred between two other groups of people, namely. Adivasis on the
one hand and non-Adivasis on the other. This allegation can hardly be reganled as vague or unintelligible. In fact the District Magistratoe gave not less
than five instances containing detailed and elaborate particulars and they are
sufficiently informative so as to provide more than adequate opportunity to
the petitioner to make an effective representation.
[222 B-Cj
(iii) What the District Magistrate meant to say by using the expression
"It •vrnld not be {)Ossible. to give details ·of such instances" was that instances
of ti!is nature were so many that one could not possibly have details of all
of them, but there were a few before him by way of illustration and since
· he bad relied on them for arrivin11 at the requisite satisfaction he proceeded
to reproduce them in grounds (2) to (6). [222E-F]
'
The !nstance, involvin2 removal of paddy crops from two plots of land as
set out ID ground ( 4) does not stand in isolation. It is part of a series of
instances set out in grounds (2), (3), (5) and (6) and if it is viewed in the
context ·Jf these other instances. it is clear that it is not a localised instance
affecting merely maintenance o(law and orJer but a part of public order.
[223 BJ
The variuus statements in regard to the activities of the petitioner in
paragraphs 5 and 7 of the counter-affidavit of the respondent were obviously
intended to repel the allegations of the petitioner that be was a dedicated social
and public worker devoted to the uplift of the backward and down trodden
c.Iasses.
These facts were not taken into account by the District Magistrate
for. the purpose of arriving at bis subjective satisfaction. [223D]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 278 of 1974.
Petition under Article 3 2 of the Constitution of India.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the petitioner.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
B. B. MAHATO v. B!HAR (Bhagwati, J.)
217
Lal Narayan Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Gyan Sudha Misra
md B. P. Singh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.
The petitioner, who is an advocate practising in the
courts in Dhanbad in the State of Bihar, has filed the present petition
challenging the validity of an order of detention dated 18th March,
197 4 made by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under section 3 of the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The case of the petitioner
is that he is a prominent public figure in the District of Dhanbad and
he has been Pramukh of Baliapur Anchal since the last about ten
years and Vice-Chairman of. Zila Parislmd, Dhanbad since about four
years. He has been associated with nwn.erous social, educational and
political institutions in the District of Dhanbad and he is engaged in
diverse •activities calculated to bring about social and economic uplift
of down-trodden people of Dhanbad \District. The 16th Annual Con·
vention of Bihar Raiya Panchayat Parishad was scheduled to be held
at Gosaidih in Dhanbad District on. 16th March, 1974 and the peti·
tioner was the' Clrairman of the Reception Committee. The ruling party ·
was very much concerned about the growing popularity of the petitioner
with the backward classes, and therefore, with a view to undermining
his position, the ruling party chose this particular time when the 16th
Annual Convention of the Bihar Rajya Panchayat Parishad was shortly
due. to be held and got a 'false case instituted against the petitipner at .
P. S. Tundi. The petitioner was arrested at Dhanbad on 6th March,
1974 and after being produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
he was taken tq Bhagalpur Central Jail from Dhanbad. On March 11,
1974 the petitioner made an application to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for being released on bail but no immediate order was passed on
that- application and the petitioner was, therefore, constrained to move
the Sessions Judge for· bail on 14th March, 1974. The Sessions Judge
granted bail to the petitioner and on the bail bonds being verified and
accepted by the. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an order dated 18th March,
1974 was passed for release of tge petitioner. On the same day, that
F · is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad passed an
order detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Act on the ground
that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the petitioner
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the m~ 'r.tenance of public
order. The order of detention was in· Hindi, which is the official language of the State of Bihar but there was also an English version of the
G
H
order of detention. There was no material difference between the Hindi
and English versions of the order of detention. Pursuant to the order
of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon
as he was released on bail in compliance with the order of release
passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and at the time of his arrest
the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of detention were
served on him tqgether with the grounds of detention which were also
in Hindi and English versions. The Hindi version, as translated in
English, set out the following grounds of detention :
"l. He has beeR propagating communal. hatred between
Adi basis and outsider$ (Biharis) and also between
--.....__
'
\
•.••_;'
218
SUPREME C:OURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
Adibasis and non-Adibasis for quite some time. He
has been instigating the A.dibasis to take up arms andIaws in their own hands in several speeches and otherwise. As a result of these instigations and incitements,
public order has been disturlx:d several times at severaf
p1'a.ces. It would I\Ot be possible to give details of such
instances, but as illustration, a few of them lire given
below:
2. 011 25-2-1973, at: Katras ·ceramic Factory, Tilatanr;
P. S. Katras, District Dhanbad, he instigated the employees of the said ceramic factory to {~move the outsiders (Biharis) by force from th_e employment of the
said factory and in consequence of the said abetment,
200 persons, armed with deadly weapons like lathi,
gra,sa etc., took out a procession and attacked the shop
of one Ram Kripal Dubey an:d assaulted him and his
father by means of lathi and grasa, and also damaged
the factory and immediately thereafter the violent processionists attacked the residential quarters sitU'ated in
the factory premises and assaulted the · inmates
and
thereby committed acts prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order;
3. On 29-8-73, jn the Railway Football Maidan, Gomoh,
P. S. Topchanchi, District Dhanbad, in course of public
speech, he asked the people to take J.aw in their own
hands by speaking 'Apna Faisla Ap Karo', 'Pahle
Gherao Karo, Fir Mukka Lath Se Maro, Fir Lathi
Chhalao, Uspar Vi N•ahin Sunta Hai To Sar Kat ,Lo'.
Similarly, on 3--11-73, at the said place, he, in a public
meeting organised by "Chotanagpur-Santhal Pargana
Alag Raj Nirman Soamity", instigated to local advasis
anct harijans to capture the lands purchased by the non·
Adibasis by means of force and to harvest the standin'll:
paddy crops therefrom. Again on 4-2-74, in Golf
Ground, Dhanbad, P.S. and district Dll'anbad, in a
meeting of Adibasis organised by Jharkhand Party, he
instigated the people to take the law in their hands and
to disturb the public peace by uttering "Agar Aaaz
Harne Koi Hat Dikhaega To USka Hat Kat Lange, Aur
Angali Dhikaega To Angali Kat Lange' and thereby
committed acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order;
4. On 1-11-73, at'viilage Maachkocha and Mahatotund,
P. S. Topchanr.hi. District Dhal.1bad, in consequence of
instigation given bv him. and his co-associates, namely,
Gopal Chandra Munshi,
Sriram Manjhi. Rashiklal
Majhi, Shibu Soren and others in village Maichokocha
· in the preceding nil!ht, Jhari Manihi, Buddhu Manjhi,
and others, belonging to 'Shivaji Samai~ forcibly took
away the standing paddy crops from plot No. 383 · in
A
B
c
D
E
F,
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
8, B. MAHATO V. BIHAR (Bha&Wtlli, J.)
village Maichakocha and plot No. 340 in village
Mahatotanr, belonging to one Ram Anandi Singh, and
grown by him, and thus committed acts prejudicial to,
the maintenance of public order;
5. On 3-3-74, at vilfage Singhdih, P.S. Topchanchi, district Dhanbad, he instigated the local Adivasis and Harijans in a Public meeting convened by "'Jharkhand Alag.
Raj Nirman Samiti" to capture the lands of nonAdibasis by me•ans of force and violence and so in
consequence of the said instigation immediately there--
after the Adibasis and Harijans, numbering about 4,000.
took out a procession being armed with deadly wea-· ·
pons, under his leadership' and on way, in between
Singdih and Amalkhori d•amaged a motor car bearing
No. BRW 9981 and thus committed acts prejudicial tothe maintenance of public order;
.
6. On 4-3-74, at village Dumanda, P.S. Tundi, District
Dhanbad, he organised a meeting of the. Manjhis (Adibasis) and instigated them to loot the properties of
'Dikus' (non-AdiV'asis) namely, Joy Narayan Chou-·
dhury of village Durgadih, K. C. ChOpra, Ismail Mia.
and others and in consequence of the said abetment on
5-3-74, at about 1.30 p.m. 500 persons, armed with
deadly weapons like bows and arrows, bhalla, farslra,
Jathi etc., formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of looting the properties of 'Dikus' and for-·
cibly removing them from there, and in prosecution
of the said common object they surrounded the house
of the said Joy Narayan Choudhury in village Durgadih, P.S. Tundi, District Dll'anbad, and started pelting
brickbats and shooting arrows as a result .of which
Ganga Bishnu Prasad and Girdhari Rai sustained injuries and thereafter set -fire to the house of said Joy
Narayan Choudhury and thus committed •acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public ·order."
219•
Then the Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the·
District Magistrate that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the·
petitioner "is allowed to remain at l•arge, he will indulge in activities
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" and for prevention of
such activities he considered the detention of the petitioner necessary.
The English version also gave the same grounds of detention but the·
satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the English version was
a little different. It stated that the District Magistrate was
satisfied
that if the petitioner "is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in
activities prejudicial to the ma_intenance of public order or security of
the State" and for prevention of such activities he considered the deten-
. tion of the petitioner necessary. The words "or security of the State"
were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version·
thou~h they were absent in the Hindi version. The petitioner made an
elaborate and exhaustive representation to the State Government
against the ordG_r of detention in an attempt to answer the grounds orr
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.,c.R.
which the order of detention was based, but this represenration was rejected by the State Government on 24th April, 1974. In the mean
time the case of the petitioner was placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board and the representation of the petitioner was
also forwarded to the Advisory Board for its consideration. The
Advisory Board gave an opportunity ~o the petitioner to be person-ally
heard and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case
gave its opinion on 2nd May, 1974 that there was sufficient cause for
the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter confirmed the order of detention on 11th May, 1974. This 'detention order
was c:hallenged by the petitioner by filling a petition under Art. 226 of
the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna. But a .
Division Bench of the High Court did not find any infirmity in the
detention and by an order dated 14th May, 1974 rejected the petition.
The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition in this Court under
Art. 3 2 of the Constitution. challenging the validity of his detention on
various grounds.
The first ground on which the validity of his detention was challenged on behalf of the petitioner was that the English version of the
grounds of detention recited th•at the District Magistrate was satisfied
that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at. large he would indulge
in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security
of the State. This recital showed that the District Magistrate did not
apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged in the
grounds of detention against the petitioner or to the question whether
they fell within the purview of the expression "the maintenance of
public order" or "the security of the State" or both and that was sufficient to vitiate the order of detention. Now, there can be no doubt,
in view of the decisions of this Court in Kishori Mohan Bera v. The
State of West Bengal(1) and Akshoy Konai v. State of West Bengal(2 )
that if the order 'of detention purports to be based on the satisfaction
of the detaining authority that it is necessary to detain the petitioner
with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order or security of the State, it would clearly be an invalid order. TI1e satisfaction of the detaining authority in
11uch a case would be on the disjunctive and not conjunctive grounds
and tha~ would me-an that the detaining authority was not certain
whether it had reached its subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of
exercising the power of detention on the ground of danger to public
order or danger to the security of the State. If the detaining authority
felt that it was necessary to detain the petitioner on the ground that his
activities affected or were likely to -affect both public order and the
security of the State, it would use the conjunctive 'and' and not the disjunctive 'or' in reciting its satisfaction. Where, however, the disjunctive
'or' is used instead of the conjunctive 'and', it would mean that the
detaining authority was either not certain whether the alleged activities
of the petitioner endangered public order or the security of the State,
or it did not seriously -apply its mind to the question whether such
activities fell under one he:ad or the other and merely reproduced
mechanically the language of section 3(1) (a)(ii). When such equim A. T, R. 19'72 S. C. 1749,
(2) A. I. R.1973 S. C· JOO.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
B. B. MAHATO v. BIHA'R (Bhagwati, J.)
22 l
vocal language is used and the detenu is not told whether his alleged
activities set out in the grounds of detention fell under one head or the.
other or both, it would b.e difficult for· him to make an adequate re·
presenl'ation against the order of detention. If, therefore, it appears in
the present case that the order of detention made by the District.
Magistrate was based on the satisfaction that it was necessary to detain
the petitioner with a view to preventing him from carrying on activities ..
prejudicia,l to the maintenance of public order or the security of the
St•ate, it would have to be struck down as .invalid. But we do not find
that there is any such infirmity in the order of detention. Whether we
look at the Hindi version or the English version, the satisfaction which
is recited in the order of det~ntion and on .which the order of detention is manifestly and avowedly based, is that it is necessary tO detain.
the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicioal to the maintenance of public order. There is no reference
to the security of the State in the recital of the satisfaction· contained
in the order of detention. The District Magistrate was satisfied that it.
was necessary to detain the petitioner only on the ground that his acti··
vities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order •and it was on
the basis of this satisfaction that he made the order of detention. The·
D · Hindi version of the grounds of detention also reiterated the satisfaction·
of tlie District Magistrate based on the same ground, namely, · tll'ai the
petitioner, if allowed to remain at large, would indulge in activities pre-·
judicial to the maintenance of public order. The recital of the satisfaction in the Hindi version of the grounds of detention did not make·
•any reference to danger to the security of the Sta.te by reason of the
activities of the petitioner. It is only in the English version of the
E
grounds of detention that we find the words "security ·of the State"·
added in the recital of the satisfaction of the District Magistrate. That
·is obviously the result of inadvertence and no argument can be founded upon it. In the first ·place, Hindi being the official langU'age of the·
State, it is the Hindi version of the grounds of detention which must be
regarded as authentic and the validity of the detention must be judged
with reference to the Hindi version of the grounds of detention and not
F
G
II
the English version. Secondly, even if we confine ourselves to the·
English version of the grounds of detention, it is clear that at the end
of each of the grounds it is stated in so many words that the acts of
the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and
there is no reference there to prejudice to the security of the State and'
it is only in the conclusion based on these acts that we find a recital
of the satisfaction that if the petitioner is allowed to remain at lar11:e,
he would indulge in- activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order or the security of the State. ·The words "or the security of the·
State" are obviously incongru,ous in. the context. They do not fit in ·
with the conclusion drawn at the end of each of the grounds which is
confined only to the maintenance of public order and nothing more .
. There can be no doubt that these words have crept in the Eng!ii;h·
, version of the grounds of detention·through some mistake. We cannot
invalidate the order of detention on the basis of such an obvious error,
ignoring the order of detention in both its Hindi and English versio11s, ·
the Hindi version of the grounds of detention and the totality of tbe·
co_ntext so far as the English version is concerned.
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
The petitioner then contended that the first ground insofar as it
.alleged that the petitioner was propagating communal hatred between
Ad1vasis and other (Biharis) and also between Adivasis and non-
.Adivasis was vague and unintelligible and the order of detention was
on that account invalid. We do not see any force in this contention.
Adivasis are the original inhabitants of the area while outsiders are
those Bihari.s who have come from outside and who are,
therefor~,
.regarded as outsiders by the original inhabitants. The petitioner was,
according to this allegation contained in the first ground, stirring hatred
between these two groups of people. He· was also propagating hatred
between two other groups of people, namely, Adivasis on the one hand
and non-Adivasis on the other. This allegation cati hardly be regarded
as vague and unintelligible. In fact the District Magistrate gave not
less than five instances containing detailed and elaborate particulars
and they were sufficiently informative so as to provide more than adequate opportunity to the petitioner to made an effective representation ..
This ground must, therefore, be regarded as wholly unjustified and must
be rejected.
A
B
c
The next ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that the
District Magistrate had taken into account many more instances than
D
those set outin grounds (2) to (6) and that was apparent from the use
of the expression "It would not be possible to give details of such instances" in ground ( 1) . This ground is also, in our opinion, unsustainable. It is true that the District Magistrate st'ated in ground ( 1)
that it would not be possible to give details of instances where by reason of instigation and abetment of the . ·petitioner disturbances of
public order had taken place, but th>at does not mean that the District
E
Magistrate had "arious instances in mind which he took into account
in arriving at his subjective satisfaction without disclosing them to the
petitioner. What the District Mljgistrate mc•ant to say by using this
expression was that instances of this nature were so many that one
could not possibly have details of all of them, but there were a few
before him by way of illustra.tion ankl since he had relied on them for
arriving at the requisite sa~sfaction, he proceeded to reproduce
F
them in grounds (2) to (6). The only instances on which the District
Magistrate relied for arriving at the requisite satisfaction were those set
out in grounds (2) to (6) a.nd no others. This ground also, then~-
fore, cannot avail the petitioner.
It was then contended on behalf of the petitioner that the instance
set out in ground (2) could not be reg'arded as one where communal
G
hatred was -propagated by the petitioner either between Adivasis and
outsiders or between Adivasis and non-Adivasis and it did not, therefore, justify the inference set out in ground ( 1). But this contention
is also futile, because it is clear from the instance as narrated in ground
(2) that the p_etitioner instigated the employees of Katras Ceramic ·
Factory to remove the outsiders (Biharis) by force from the employment of that fuctory, and in. consequence of this instigation. violence
H
was committed by 200 persons armed with deadly weapons like lathis.
bhalas etc. and if this could not be regarded as propagation of communal lratred between Advasis and outsiders (Bifiaris), we fail to see
;
I
• '
\
A
c
D
E
B. B. MAHATO v. BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.)
223
what other instance can be so branded. Thls incident also had direct
nexus with maintenance of public order.
The petitioner also contended that the instance set out in ground
( 4) was an instance involving removal of paddy crops from two plots
of land in villages Marchacocha and Mahatotund and that could have
no relation to mamtenance of public order. But.is must be remembered that this instance does not Stand in isolation. It· is a part of a series
of instances set out in grc;mnds ( 2) , ( 3) , ( 5) and ( 6) and if it is
viewed in the context. of these other . instances, it is clear that it is not
a looalised instance affecting merely maintenance of law and order but
a part of a series of acts affecting maintenance of public order._
I
· The last ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that paragraphs 5 and 7 of the affidavit filed by Miss Sunila Dayal, Deputy
Secretary to Government of B1har, Heme Department, in reply·to the
petition showed that there were various other materials in regard tl>
the petitioner which were taken into account by the District Magistrate
in arriving at his subjective satisfaction anq. since no opportunity was
given to the petitioner to make an affective representation in regard to
such materials, the order of detention was bad. This ground is also
untenable. It is true that various statements in regard to the activities
of the petitioner were made in p•ar.agraphs 5 and 7 of the counter affi·
davit of Miss Sunila Dayal but these were obviously intended to repel
the allegations of the petitioner that he was a dedicated social and
. public worker ~evoted to the uplift of the backward and down~trodden
classes. They were not set out .as facts taken into account by the District Magistrate for the purpose of arriving at his subjective satisfaction
in regard to .the necessity of the detention · of the petitioner. Miss
Sunila Dayal did not state anywhere in her counter a!fidavit that these
facts weighed with the District Mugistrate in reaching the requisite
satisfaction. · In fact, the District Magistrate himself had made an afildavit in reply to the petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court
of Patna and ,in that afildavit, he did not refer to any of these facts 0s
having been 1 taken into account by him in passing the order of detenF
tion. This ground ·must also, therefore; fail.
Thesed~e the only grounds urged in support of the petition and
since there is no substance in them, the petition fails and the rule is
discharged.
G
V.M.K.
Petition dislnissed.
,,.