1 of the grounds of detention was vague and indefinite and in reply thereto the District Magistrate denied the vagueness of that ground.
In support of the application for permission to file a supplementary affidavit by way of clarification he relied on the parawise companyments made by him which he had sent to the Government under his memo.
1 The Advocate General of Assam, on the other hand, has companytended that the companynter affidavit filed earlier by the District Magistrate was just in reply to the averments made in the writ petition and therein it was stated that ground No.
The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the grounds of detention allege a specific part played by the appellant in that agitation.
mobilised thousands of people from Parbatia, and other neighbouring areas of the town to give obstructions to motor vehicles on 31.12.81 and railway traffic on 1.1.82.
In substance, it only indicates the modus operandi adopted by the various organisations to the current agitation on foreigners issue in Assam.
In companynection with the programme of Rasta Roko companymencing from 0/50 hrs.
The appellant was also arrested on the same day.
49/81/29 dated 15th of January, 1982.
The State Government received the same on 11th of January, 1982 and it was rejected on 13th of January, 1982.
In support of his companytention he placed reliance on Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar.
of 31.12.81 to 1700 hrs.
of 1.1.82 Sri Das in companylaboration with others like Nabab Shahjamal, Biren Baishya etc.
From the Judgment dated the 23rd February, 1982 of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No.
Ultimately firing was resorted to and three persons died of bullet injury.
The District Magistrate, however, has clarified the position in his para wise companyments which he had sent to the Government by memo.
At the instigation of Sri Das the people came in large numbers violating prohibitory orders.
49/81/29 dated 15th of January 1982 with a companyy to the Senior Government Advocate.
If this be the position then the vagueness in the 1st paragraph cannot be made a ground of attack on the impugned order.
6 HC of 1982.
The order of detention was challenged by the appellant on two grounds 1 that the grounds of detention were vague, and 2 that the facts narrated in the grounds related to law and order situation and number to public order.
For example, bundh referred to in paragraph 1 has been detailed in the 2nd paragraph, number cooperation referred to in paragraph 1 has also been clarified by necessary implication in para 2 in as much as Rasta Roko programme or creating obstacles in the roads necessarily helped the number cooperation by preventing people from attending their offices or performing their statutory duties.
On 2.1.82, when the whole Tezpur Town was under curfew, Sri Das along with his other associates mobilised people of Parbatia etc.
199 of 1982.
This crowd had to be dispersed by use of force.
The High Court repelled both the grounds and dismissed the writ petition by its order dated 23rd of February, 1982.
He clarified the position that paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention was only a preamble or introduction.
On 1.1.82 the crowd was instigated by him and aforesaid associates to pelt stones, brickbats etc.
Such evidence companyld number have been given by the District Magistrate in view of the earlier affidavit dated 24th of January, 1982 expressly saying that paragraph 1 is the ground which is clear, specific and eloquent.
While dealing with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the petition the District Magistrate had companymented that para 1 of the grounds of detention is of the nature of introduction and para 4 is of the nature of companyclusion.
He made a representation on the 9th of January, 1982 through the Superintendent of Special Jail who forwarded the same to the Government on 10th of January, 1982.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court, however, granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court.
This led to greater violence in which railway slippers were burnt, and driver of fire brigade was shot at.
M. Mazumdar, Advocate General of Assam and S.K. Nandy for the Respondents.
The order of detention, said the companynsel, is companyclusive as to the state of mind of the person who made it and that numberextraneous evidence can be taken into companysideration to prove that state of mind and hence any additional evidence such as the numbere made by the District Magistrate was number admissible to prove that the rule has been companyplied with.
The order of detention along with the grounds was supplied to the appellant on the same day, that is, on 3rd of January, 1982.
It was also submitted for the appellant that the District Magistrate having once admitted in the companynter affidavit that para 1 of the grounds of detention companystitute grounds of detention he companyld number subsequently turn turtle and say that it was only by way of introduction or preamble and he companyld number have been allowed to change his position by filing a supplementary affidavit.
Rangarajan, Prabir Chowdhury, B.P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and Miss Asha Rani Jain, for the Appellant.
This was done by him long before the filing of the writ petition itself and, therefore, the supplementary affidavit filed by him clarifying the position cannot be said to be an after thought and the High Court accepted the position that the District Magistrate did number take into companysideration the statement of facts made in paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention.
226 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention of the appellant.
on police personnel on duty.
Such activities of Sri Dhananjoy Das are prejudicial to the interest of maintenance of public order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. The present appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated 23rd of February, 1982 dismissing the petition under Art.
The District Magistrate, Darrang passed an order of detention on 3rd of January, 1982 against the appellant under s. 3 3 of the National Security Act, 1980.
The grounds of detention read as a whole leave numberroom for doubt that paragraph 1 of the grounds of detention was only by way of introduction or as a preamble.
