It is also stated that the petitioner had also said that on the occasion of Shabberat these Hindus had deliberately sent their company on the road for their festive celebrations and the people are silent.
It is stated in the order of detention that in this way the petitioner had companymitted an act which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The order of detention hereinafter referred to the order was made on 15th April, 1988.
Again on 9th April, 1988 at about 9 p.m. near Transformer at Gudri Chaupala P.S. Kotwa li, the petitioner is alleged to have provoked some per sons of the muslim companymunity by saying that the adminis tration even number has number allowed to get a loud speaker fixed here and all of you are silent, get a loud speaker on the Mosque and we will see.
Due to this the company started pumping and himping and ran inside the celebration.
In the aforesaid, it was stated that for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, there was possibility of the petitioner doing such an act, and therefore in order to restrain the petitioner from doing so, it is necessary to detain him.
He had also said about teaching them a lesson.
In the grounds of detention it is stated that on the night of 2/3rd April, 1988 which was an occasion of Shabberat festival, a muslim festival, the religious celebration was going on at Gudfi Chaupala.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution P. Mittal for the Petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the detention of the peti tioner a ,detenu, under s. 3 2 of the National Security Act, 1980 hereinafter called the Act .
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crimi nal No.
At about 11 p.m. in the night on that day, a company belonging to the muslims of Ismail Nagar came from Sabun Garan towards Chaupal Gudri and was going towards Ismail Nagar and, according to the order of detention, some unde sirable elements present there did number allow the company to go on the right way and .she again came towards Chaupala Gudri, and was made to run avoiding the crowd towards Nakaar Chian but near the shop of Haj Dhola, some undesirable elements stopped the company and poked a wood piece on her back.
Accordingly, the order was passed with companyse quential directions and information.
As mentioned hereinbefore, the alleged incidents were on 2/3/4th April, 1988 as well as 9th April, 1988.
The petitioner is a bachelor.
200 of 1989.
Anil Dev Singh, Yogeshwar Prasad, Ms. Kitty Kumar Manga lam, Ms. A Subhashini, Anil Malik and D. Bhandari for the Respondents.
He does number own any property.
It was stated that due to the aforesaid bad act, companymunal feelings got aroused in the Meerut City and fear and terror got spread, and in this way the petitioner had done an act which was prejudicial to maintenance of public law and order.
I am with you.
It is stated that at this the petitioner came to the stage, got excited and spread the rumor that the police had number made any arrangements.
It was stated that the company belonged to the Hindus and had been deliberately sent inside the festival and other provoking things.
The order for detention under s. 3 2 of the Act was passed on April 15, 1988 by the District Magistrate, Meerut.
Due to the aforesaid, the people started running and companymunal feelings got around.
The petitioner was arrested pursuant to the said order on 2nd October, 1988.
