Reoti Raman Shukla alias Shyam Das alias Shyamu vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Vishnu Sahai, J.—Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, detenu-Petitioner Reoti Raman Shukla alias Shyam Das alias Shyamu has impugned the order dated 10.9.2001, passed by the 3rd Respondent, District Magistrate, Faizabad, detaining him u/s 3(2) of the National Security Act.

The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 10.9.2001 was served on the Petitioner on 10.9.2001, itself while he was in custody in C. R. No. 579 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, Indian Penal Code, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, of police station Ayodhya, district Faizabad. True copies of the detention order and the grounds of detention are annexed as Annexure-1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.

The prejudicial activities of the detenu-Petitioner impelling the 3rd Respondent to issue the impugned detention order against him are contained in the grounds of detention. A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order has been issued against the detenu-Petitioner on three C. Rs. ; namely C.R. No. 579 of 2001 of Kotwali Ayodhya, district Faizabad (referred to above), C.R. No. 260 of 2001 u/s 307, Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, and C.R. No. 261 of 2001 u/s 3/5 of the Arms Act, both of police station Cantt, district Basti.

Since in our judgment, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the detenu-Petitioner contained in the said C. Rs. is not necessary for the decision of this writ petition, we are not adverting to them.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the writ petition and those contained in various affidavits filed on behalf of the detenu-Petitioner and the Respondents. In our view, this writ petition deserves to succeed on the averments made in paras 16, 11 and 12 of the writ petition.

In para 16 of the writ petition, the pleading is that the impugned detention order is vitiated by the vice of non-application of mind and the detaining authority has passed it in a mechanical manner ; acting like a rubber stamp.

The averment contained in para 16 of the petition has been replied to in para 11 of the return of the detaining authority dated 8.3.2002. In the said paragraph, the detaining authority has stated that he has passed the impugned detention order after full application of mind on the basis of the material placed before him by the sponsoring authority and has categorically refuted the averment that he has acted in a mechanical manner ; like a rubber stamp.

We have perused the averments contained in para 16 of the petition and those contained in para 11 of the return of the detaining authority and are constrained to observe that the impugned detention order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. A perusal of the grounds of detention, formulated by the detaining authority (Annexure-2), shows that the impugned order is founded on three C. Rs. namely C.R. No. 579 of 2001 of Police Station Ayodhya, district Faizabad, C.R. No. 260 of 2001 and 261 of 2001 of Police Station Cantt, district Basti but in para 4 of his affidavit dated 8.3.2002 the detaining authority has categorically stated that the impugned order is only founded on C.R. No. 579 of 2001. Neither in para 4 of his affidavit nor in any other paragraph thereof, has the detaining authority averred that the impugned order is founded on C.R. Nos. 260 of 2001 and 261 of 2001 of Police Station Cantt, district Basti.

For the said reasons in our view, the impugned detention order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and on this ground alone, this petition deserves to succeed.

There is another infirmity, though of a secondary nature, on account of which the detention order cannot be sustained. The said infirmity has been highlighted in paras 11 and 12 of the petition. It has been mentioned therein that one of the documents forwarded by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority is the life sketch of the detenu-Petitioner (Annexure-32 to the petition is the true copy of the said life sketch) and the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to preventively detain the detenu was adversely affected by this life sketch of the detenu Petitioner. In the submission of the detenu Petitioner''s counsel, this life sketch of the Petitioner was extraneous material.

The averments contained in paras 11 and 12 of the petition have been replied to in para 7 of the return of the detaining authority dated 8.3.2002, wherein he has stated that the detention order was passed by him after fully applying his mind on the material placed by the sponsoring authority and the averments contained in paras 11 and 12 of the petition to the effect that it was prompted with malicious, fictitious, political and extraneous considerations, is denied.

We have perused the averments contained in paras 11 and 12 of the petition and those contained in para 7 of the return of the detaining authority and find merit in the averments contained in paras 11 and 12 of the petition.

The Supreme Court in the case of Vashisht Narain Karwaria v. State of U.P. and Anr. 1990 ACR 325 (SC) : 1990 SCC 372, in para 10, has laid down that if material of extraneous nature touching upon the character of the detenu, though not referred in the grounds of detention, (as is the case here) is placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority, the possibility of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, in a case wherein the detention order is based on one ground, of being influenced by it cannot be excluded.

In our view, the ratio laid down in the case of Vashisht Narain Karwaria (supra) is applicable to the present case because from para 4 of the return of the detaining authority, it is manifest that the detention order is founded on a solitary incident on the basis of which C. R. No. 579 of 2001 of police station Ayodhya, district Faizabad was registered, wherein the involvement of the detenu Petitioner came to light during investigation.

For the said reasons, we allow this writ petition ; quash the detention order dated 10.9.2001 ; and direct that the detenu Petitioner Reoti Raman Shukla alias Shyam Das alias Shyamu be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case.