SHARAD KUMAR TYAGI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 257 · Decided: 18-01-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
·:--· ,,., 
-""* 
SHARAD KUMAR TYAGI 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
JANUARY 18, 1989 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
National Security Act 1980 Sections 3(2), 7(2) and 11-Detenu-
Demanding Chauth for gundagardi of mango-On refusal to pay-
Threatening contractors and shop-keepers-Reports lodged with 
police-Whether incidents affect 'Law and Order' or 'maintenance of 
public order'-Detention order-Whether valid. 
Advisory Board-Representation by friend-Duty of detenu to 
make the request. 
· 
Detention order-Challenge to-On ground of delay in arrest of 
A 
B 
c 
detenu-When sustainable. 
D 
On April 5, 1988 an order of detention was passed against the 
petitioner in the writ petition under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act. 
He could not be served with this order and taken into preventive 
custody as he was absconding. He was treated as an absconder and 
resort was had to s. 7(2) of the Act. A proclamation was obtained 
E 
against him under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code 
1973 and was executed on May 5, 1988. He surrendered thereafter in 
Court on July 4, 1988 and was sent to the District Jail where he was 
served the detention order and the grounds of detention on July S, 1988. 
In the grounds of detention three incidents were enumerated indi-
F 
eating that the petitioner had acted in a manner which was against the 
maintenance of public law and order situation. The incidents were: 
(1) On July 8, 1987 the petitioner had gone along with his 
associates and threatened the contractor of a mango garden that fees for 
goondagardi (Chauth) should be paid to him and assaulted the con-
G 
tractor. The matter was reported to the police who registered a case 
under Sections 301and323 I.P.C .. 
(2) On February 11, 1988 the petitioner threatened a shopkeeper 
that be should pay Rs.10,000 immediately falling which he would be 
killed. The shopkeeper reported the matter to the police "ho had 
H 
257 
A 
B 
258 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19891 1 S.C.R. 
registered a case under s. 506 I.P.C. 
(3) On March 3, 1988 the petitioner taking a Revolver in his hand 
moved in the market area and, threatened the shopkeepers if they do 
not pay 'Chauth' they could not open their shops. On account of this 
threat the entire market was closed. 
I 
The grounds of detention al8o informed the petitioner that he 
could make a representation under s. 3 of the Act and that the matter 
would be submitted under s. 10 to the Advisory Board, and that he 
could make any representation for the consideration of the Board. 
The meeting of the Advisory Board was fixed on August 2, 1988. ll
c 
D 
The Board considered the written and oral representations of the 
petitioner and gave a report that there was sufficient cause for the 
detention of the petitioner. The State Government accepted the report 
of the Advisory Board and passed a further order on August l 7 /18, 
1988 confirming the detention of the petitioner. 
In the writ petition to this Court the detention order was assailed 
on the following grounds: 
( l) The three grounds set out in the grounds of detention are not 
incidents which would affect the maintenance of public order or the 
E even tempo of the life of the community. (2) the third incident has been 
co11cocted in order to give credibility to the detention order. (3) The 
petitioner was denied the opportunity to have the assistance of a friend 
when he appeared before the Advisory Board, and (4) That the Central 
Government had not considered the petitioner's case when the State 
Government sent a report under section 3(5) of the Act and the non-
application of mind by the Central Government vitiates the detention of 
F 
the petitioner. 
Dismissing the writ petition, 
HELD: l.(a) The demand for chauth from the contractor and the 
attack lannched on him would show that it was not a case of singling 
G 
out a particular contractor for payment of chauth but a demand 
expected to be complied with by all owners or contractors of mango 
groves in the locality. In such circumstances the demand inade and )!-
the attack launched would undoubtedly cause fear and panic in the 
m.inds llf all the owners and contractors of mango groves in that 
ar~a, and this would have affected the even tempo of life of the 
H 
co11.1munity. [265E-F] 
,. 
-~ 
S.K. TYAGI v. STATE OF U.P. 
259 
l.(b) The incident in the second ground must also be viewed in 
the same manner in which the first incident has been construed as 
indicated
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.