LexNISHI KANTA MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ 224 NISIIl KANTA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL April 18, 1972 [J. M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (Presldenfs Act 19 of 1910)-Section s 3(2) (d), 10-"Actlng in a "!"nn.~ prejudi- cial to the maintenance of public order"-If s. ·10 makes it obl~atory to specify the dale in the order. 'Constitution o/ India--Article 356(1)-Law made under if co-termi- nous with the duration of the proclamation. The petitioner was detained under s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970} as he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The particulars supplied to' the petitioner showed that he and his associates hurled bombs as a result of which panic was created in the local:ty ancl that high explosive bombs were recovered from the possession of the peti- tioner and his associates. In the petition for the issue of a writ of habe01J corpus it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that (i) on the revo- cation of the Proclamation under article 356 of tho Constitution, Presi- dent's Act No. 19' of 1970 ceased to have effect and. as such, the peti- tioner could not be kept in detention in pursuance of the order made under- the Act: (ii) the impugned detention order was not in conformity with section 10 of tile A.ct. as it did not specify the date of detc ition and (iii) the groun<ls of detention were not germane 1".l. the objects fo.- which a person can be ordered to be detained under the Act. Dismissing the petition, HELD : (i) The period for which a law made under article 356 (I) remains in force is not co-terminous with the duration of the proclama- tion. In view of the provisions of clause (2) article 357, President's Act 19 of 1970 shall remain in fore\> in spite of the revacation of the proclama- tion and would cease to have effect only on the expiry of one year after the proclamation has ceased to operate unless the provisions of the Act are sooner repealed or reenacted by Act of the apprupriate State Legisla- ture. I227El (ii) There is nothing in section 10 which makes it obiigatory on the part of the detaining authority to specify the date of the commencement of the detention : The words "from the date of detention under the order" have reference to the date of the commencement of the deten- .tion in pursWUlce of the detention order. [228E-Fl (iii) According to cl. (d) of sub-section (2) of section 3 the expres- sion uacting in !lny manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" would include commission of an offence under the Arms Act, 1959, or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The particulars supplied to the petitio1'er clearly bring the case within the ambit of clause (d) of sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Act. [229Hl In order to detain a person with a view to preventing him from acting in anv manner prejudicial to the security of the state or the maintenance of public order, as contemplated by s. 3(2) (d) of the Act, it is sufficient· A B c .E (I G A B c N. K. MONDAL v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, J.) 22S that the detaining authority considers it necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from doing any of the acts mentiorted in clause (d). If the past conduct and antecedents of the person concerned reveal a ten- dency to do the acts· referred to in clause (d), the order of detention would be upheld, even though because of some superyening cause like prompt action by the police, the public order is nQf actually disturbed. [230E-Gl ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 7 of 1972. Under Article. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. H. K. Puri, for the petitioner. D. N. Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Khanna, J.-This is a pe\ition through jail for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by Nishi Kanta Mondal who has been ordered by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas to be detained under section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Acti- D vities) Act, 1970 (President's Act No. 19 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The order of detention reads as under : E "GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL OFFICE OF TIIE.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE 24-PARGANAS ORDER No. 352/71 Datetl, 'the 6-7-71 Whereas .I am satisfied with respect to the person· known as Shri Nishi Kanta Monda!, son of Shri Radha- nath Mo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.