AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arunachalam, J.—Petitioner Ahamed Ali alias Palanibaba has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention dated 10-8-1993 passed
by the second respondent District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur, under National Security Act, with a view to preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The grounds of detention show that on 1-8-1993 around 5.30 p.m. at Lawley Hall, Thanjavur, a meeting was conducted under the auspices of
the Jihad Committee of Thanjavur and Nagapattinam Quauid-e-Milleth District wherein the petitioner addressed the members of the said Jihad
Committed of the two districts. In the said meeting, petitioner made an inflammatory speech inciting feelings of hatred and communal disharmony
between Hindus and Muslims, which was calculated to affect public order. The grounds of detention further read that thereafter, the detenu visited
several places in Thanjavur District clandestinely in the areas dominated by Muslims and organised them to attend the proposed Jumma prayer on
13-8-1993 at the disputed site in Survey No. 519/1A in violation of the order of the Revenue Divisonal Officer, Thanjavur, dated 3-5-1992,
passed under S. 147(3), Code of Criminal Procedure and lastly renewed on 29-7-1993.
In this Habeas Corpus Petition, though several grounds have been raised in the memorandum and argued as well, we do not deem it necessary
to consider every one of them, for this Habeas Corpus Petition has to be allowed on the short ground of impossibility of placement of certain
material before the detaining authority at 9.00 a.m. on 10-8-1993 for application of his mind to arrive at his subjective satisfaction to preventively
detain the petitioner. Secondly, the whole process of placement of papers, perusing of about 77 pages of typed material, arriving at subjective
satisfaction, dictating the preventive order and grounds of detention and having the order and the grounds ready even by 12.00 noon, after typing,
to our mind, appears to be an impossible feat
The documents supplied to the petitioner show that he was remanded on the night of 9-8-1993. Forms 95, seven in number have been supplied
to the detenu in pages 23 to 29 of the paper book. These forms contain case property number 535/93 allotted to it, on 10-8-1993 by Judicial
Magistrate, Tiruvaiyaru. There cannot be a second opinion that these numbers from Court, could have been obtained only after Court commenced
its work on the next morning. As rightly submitted by Mr. I. Subramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, at the earliest this information
could have been obtained at 10.00 a.m. on 10-8-1993. Though we have our own doubts whether it could have been obtained even at 10.00 a.m.,
we will assume, for the purpose of this case that the whole Department had worked so efficiently that they were able to obtain the C.P. Number
even at 10.00 a.m. on 10-8-1993. Unfortunately for the respondents, a responsible .Officer of the Indian Administrative Service has sworn to an
affidavit stating that even at 9-00 a.m. on 10-8-1993, Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru, had not only furnished his affidavit, but had also enclosed
the documents and materials relating to this crime with a request to take appropriate action under the provisions of the National Security Act. We
have already stated that the State had to concede, that before 10-00 a.m, this property number could not have been obtained. Affidavit of the
responsible officer of Indian Administrative Service again shows that after careful scrutiny of those materials (affidavit of Sponsoring Authority and
77 pages of typed documents), he had dictated the grounds of detention as well as the order of detention to his stenographer and they were made
ready around 12-00 noon and placed before him along with the documents and materials already furnished to him by the sponsoring authority. He
claims to have gone through the papers and signed the detention order and grounds of detention soon thereafter. If the papers had been placed
before the detaining authority not earlier than 10-00 a.m. at least a reasonable time ought have been taken by the detaining authority to peruse the
papers placed before him, which are quite voluminous, apply his mind to the material placed before him, and formulate the grounds before
engaging himself in dictating to his Stenographer. The order of detention is in a single page, while the grounds of detention run to 14 pages. This
dictation, from our experience, must have taken quite a length of time and the typing must have taken approximately two hours. The whole process
of application of mind, formulation of grounds, dictating and typing, is claimed to have been concluded within two hours. We have to repeat that
the detaining authority claims to have achieved an almost impossible feat. We are unable to see, why such great hurry, should have been exhibited
to pass the order even before 12-00 noon, for sufficient time could have been taken, to adopt this process, which can then be accepted, on
reasonable basis that there was enough time for application of mind, getting ready the detention order and grounds to be served on the detenu
thereafter. An irrepressible impression, that the whole process could not have been completed, within such a short time does loom large. This leads
to a further opinion that the impugned order had been passed mechanically without time for application of mind. If that be so, on this sole ground,
the detenu is bound to succeed.
Impugned order of detention shall stand set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is otherwise required.
This Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.