Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a Writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
1520 of 1973.
2 78 N. Mukherji and Rathin Das for the petitioner.
32 of the Constitution.
N. Chaudhury, for the respondents.
he companyld number number seek to buttress his detention order by those grounds, because the detention order was made for the maintenance of public order only in the second event also, those grounds should be totally ignored.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI, J. It is a petition for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus under Art.
The petitioner alleges that he is the acting President of the Council of the Displaced Bengalees living in the State of Assam.
On April 2, 1973, the District Magistrate, Sibasagar, Jorhat in the said State, passed an order under S. 3 2 read with.s.
On April 3, 1973 the District Magistrate served the grounds of detention on him.
and the whole order of detention would fall down.279B C State ofBombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya 1951 S.C.R. 167, distinguished.
Accordingly, he was so detained.
There is a difference between public order and security of the State.
In the first event.
3 1 a ii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for detaining the petitioner in the Jorhat jail.
A companyjoint reading of the detention order and the grounds of detention was suggestive of the inference that the District Magistrate had either numberinformation of the grounds relevant to the security of the State at the time of the passing of the detention order, or that, if he had information of those grounds, he did number believe them to be factually companyrect and accordingly did number bottom his detention order on them.
But in the grounds of detention the District Magistrate specifically relied on security of State.
Every breach of public order will number necessarily affect the security of the State.
The State Government approved the order of detention.
ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The detention order was passed in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
279F G Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar, 1966 1 S. C. R. 109 at page 746, Shibhan Lal Saxena v. The State Uttar Pradesh, 1954 S. C. R. 41 8,at p. 422, Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar, 1968 3 S.C.R. 587 at p. 593 Pushkar Mukherjee V. The State of West Bengal, 1969 2 S.C.R. 635 Ananta Mukhi Ananta Hari v. State of West Bengal, 1972 3 C.R. 379 and Masood Alam v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1973 C. 897, referred to.
The petition was heard by us on October 30, 1973.
If he did number think it proper to rely on them while making the detention order, he companyld number deploy them at a later date as another string to the how.
He says the above prejudicial activities.
It was number made with a view to preventing him from acting prejudicially to the security of the State.
