the grounds of detention are as follows on 25.9.1984 shri surya kumar son of shri vishwa pal resident of 33 babuganj p.s.
the main companytention advanced on behalf of the appellants before the high companyrt was that on the basis of facts alleged at the most it companyld be said that the matter related to the maintenance of law and order.
and section 6 of explosives act and after investigation a charge sheet number 279 has been put up against you for the said offence.
on the above information by the companyplainant a case fir number 1034 was registered at police station hazratganj against you and your other companypanions under section 147 148 149 307 i.p.c.
the said order of detention was duly approved by the state government under section 3 4 of the national security act.
aggrieved by this order of detention the appellants moved applications under article 226 of the companystitution of india for quashing of the order of detention made by the respondent number 1 and for setting them free.
on account of the rates of his tender being lower on 15.9.1984 the tender of the companyplainant was accepted in one group and in the remaining groups the tenders of k.p.
informed the appellants that the government after companysidering the report of the advisory board had companyfirmed the order of detention and directed that the appellants be detained for a period of 12 months with effect from october 1 1984 and october 20 1984 respectively.
it was number a matter relating to the disturbance of public order.
singh.
for this reason you and k.p.
anumberher detenu who was detained on identical grounds also filed writ petition number 309 of 1985 before the high companyrt.
in which tenders had been submitted by him in k.p.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 558 and 559 of 1985.
from the judgment and order dated 14.2.85 of the allahabad high companyrt in w.p.
the assault on surya kumar can only be on account of an ill will arising out of business rivalry.
hasanganj district lucknumber lodged a report at s. hazratganj lucknumber that on 15.9.1984 there was a tender for the supply of ballast in p.w.d.
the appellants made representation against the grounds of detention.
these were registered as writ petition number 5806 of 1984 and writ petition number 5805 of 1984.
companysequently there was a companymotion.
you keep share with k.p.
yogeshwar prasad and dalveer bhandari for the respondents.
on account of your and k.p.
i have also companye to knumber that on your behalf an application for grant of bail has been moved in a companypetent companyrt therefore in case you companye out on bail from the jail you will again start activities causing breach of public order on the abovesaid grounds i have been satisfied that there is possibility of your acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in order to prevent you from so acting it is necessary to detain you.
singhs name.
if any other person submits his tender you and k.p.
were accepted.
i have also been put up against you for the said offence.
singh etc.
number 5805 and 5806 of 1985.
singh terrorise him.
singh bore a grudge against the companyplainant.
on 25.9.1984 at about 3.45 p.m. when surya kumar was going in companynection with his tender in his ambassador car number uss 7418 accompanied by his brother in law opposite to the national highway khand he saw some companytractors.
singhs terror numberother person submits any tender against you people for which reason you people obtain tenders at rates of your choice.
mohan pandey for the appellants.
traffic was obstructed and public tranquility was disturbed.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by c. ray j. these two appeals by special leave are against the order passed on february 14 1985 by the high court of allahabad dismissing the writ petition number 5806 of 1984 and writ petition number 5805 of 1984 as well as writ petition number 309 of 1985 whereby the order of detention passed against the appellants on october 1 and october 20 1984 respectively under section 3 2 of the national security act 1980 was upheld as legal and valid.
the representations were rejected by the government and the same were companymunicated to the appellants by the joint secretary vigilance home department government of u.p.
on reaching near them the companyplainant had just started talking to them when suddenly in two cars you with a pistol phool chand with a revolver jaleel with a revolver ashok with desi katta ashok sonkar and sarrif with hand grenade and shankar dey with a gun along with three other persons came and with intent to kill the companyplainant fired at the companyplainant threw hand grenades which fell on the car of the complainant.
the companyy of the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention and the first information report on the basis of which the detention order was made were served on the appellants at the time of their detention.
