The words or security of the State were added in the recital of the satisfaction in the English version though they were absent in the Hindi version.
There was numbermaterial difference between the Hindi and English versions of the order of detention.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
On March 1 1, 1974 the petitioner made an application to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for being released on bail but numberimmediate order was passed on that application and the petitioner was, therefore, companystrained to move the Sessions Judge for bail on 14th March, 1974.
This detention order was challenged by the petitioner by filling a petition under Art.
But a Division Bench of the High Court did number find any infirmity in the detention and by an order dated 14th May, 1974 rejected the petition.
Then the Hindi version proceeded to recite the satisfaction of the District Magistrate that in the circumstances he was satisfied that if the petitioner is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and for prevention of such activities he companysidered the detention of the petitioner necessary.
Rashiklal Majhi, Shibu Soren and others in village Maichokocha in the preceding night, Jhari Manjhi, Buddhu Manjbi, and others, belonging to Shivaji Samaj forcibly took away the standing paddy crops from plot No.
383 in village Maichakocha and plot No.
The Advisory Board gave an opportunity to the petitioner to be person ally heard and after companysidering all the facts and circumstances of the case gave its opinion on 2nd May, 1974 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
Again on 4 2 74, in Golf Ground, Dhanbad, P.S. and district Dhunbad, in a meeting of Adibasis organised by Jharkhand Party, be instigated the people to take the law in their hands and to disturb the public peace by uttering Agar Aaaz Hame Koi Hat Dikhaega To Uska Hat Kat Lange, Aur Angali Dhikaega To Angali Kat Lange and thereby companymitted acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order On 1 1 1 73, at village Maachkocha and Mahatotund,P. S. Topabanchi, District Dhanbad, in companysequence of instigation given by him and his companyassociates, namely, Gopal Chandra Munsbi, Sriram Manjhi.
It stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that if the petitioner is allowed to remain at large he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the State and for prevention of such activities he companysidered the detention of the petitioner necessary.
The order of detention was in Hindi, which is the official language of the State of Bihar but there was also an English version of the order of detention.
The first ground on which the validity of his detention was challenged on behalf of the petitioner was that the English version of the grounds of detention recited that the District Magistrate was satisfied that if the petitioner was allowed to remain at large he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the State.
The English version also gave the same grounds of detention but the satisfaction of the District Magistrate recited in the English version was a little different.
340 in village Mahatotanr, belonging to one Ram Anandi Singh, and grown by him, and thus companymitted acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order On 3 3 74, at village Singhdih, P.S. Topchanchi, district Dhanbad, he instigated the local Adivasis and Harijans in a Public meeting companyvened by Jharkhand Alag Raj Nirman Samiti to capture the lands of number Adibasis by means of force and violence and so in companysequence of the said instigation immediately thereafter the Adibasis and Harijans, numbering about 4,000, took out a procession being armed with deadly weapons, under his leadership and on way, in between Singdih and Amalkhori damaged a motor car bearing No.
He has been associated with numerous social, educational and political institutions in the District of Dhanbad and he is engaged in diverse activ ities calculated to bring about social and economic uplift of down trodden people of Dhanbad District.
The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition in this Court under Art.
This recital showed that the District Magistrate did number apply his mind with any seriousness either to the acts alleged in the ,grounds of detention against the petitioner or to the question whether they fell within the purview of the expression the maintenance of public order or the security of the State or both and that was sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.
On the same day, that is 18th March, 1974, the District Magistrate, Dbanbad passed an order detaining the petitioner under section 3 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
278 of 1974.
BRW 9981 and thus companymitted acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order On 4 3 74, at village Dumanda, P.S. Tundi, District Dhanbad, he organised a meeting of the Manjhis Adibasis and instigated them to loot the properties of Dikus number Adivasis namely, Joy Narayan Choudhury of village Durgadih, K. C. Chopra, Ismail Mia and others and in companysequence of the said abetment on 5 3 74, at about 1.30 p.m. 500 persons, armed with deadly weapons like bows and arrows, bhalla, farsha, lathi etc.,
The Sessions Judge granted bail to the petitioner and on the bail bonds being verified and accepted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, an order dated 18th March, 1974 was passed for release of the petitioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
formed an unlawful assembly with the companymon object of looting the properties of Dikus and forcibly removing them from there, and in prosecution of the said companymon object they surrounded the house of the said Joy Narayan Choudhury in village Durgadih, P.S. Tundi, District Dhanbad, and started petting brickbats and shooting arrows as a result of which Ganga Bishnu Prasad and Girdhari Rai sustained injuries and thereafter set fire to the house of said Joy Narayan Choudhury and thus companymitted acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
In the mean time the case of the petitioner was placed by the State Government before the Advisory Board and the representation of the petitioner was also forwarded to the Advisory Board for its companysideration.
Lal Narayan Sinha, Solicitor General of India, Gyan Sudha Misra and B. P. Singh, for the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that he is a prominent public figure in the District of Dhanbad and he has been Pramukh of Baliapur Anchal since the last about ten years and Vice Chairman of Zila Parishad, Dhanbad since about four years.
The State Government thereafter companyfirmed the order of detention on 11th May, 1974.
K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the petitioner.
The petitioner was arrested at Dhanbad on 6th March, 1974 and after being produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he was taken to Bhagalpur Central Jail from Dhanbad.
The ruling party was very much companycerned about the growing popularity of the petitioner with the backward classes, and therefore, with a view to undermining his position, the ruling party chose this particular time when the 16th Annual Convention of the Bihar Rajya Panchayat Parishad was shortly due to be held and got a false case instituted against the petitioner at P. S. Tundi.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. The petitioner, who is an advocate practising in the companyrts in Dhanbad in the State of Bihar, has filed the present petition challenging the validity of an order of detention dated 18th March, 1974 made by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
The 16th Annual Convention of Bihar Rajya Panchayat Parishad was scheduled to be held at Gosaidih in Dhanbad District on 16th March, 1974 and the petitioner was the Chairman of the Reception Committee.
The Hindi version, as translated in English, set out the following grounds of detention He has been propagating companymunal hatred between Adibasis and outsiders Biharis and also between Adibasis and number Adibasis for quite some time.
Pursuant to the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 21st March, 1974 as soon as he was released on bail in companypliance with the order of release passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and at the time of his arrest the Hindi as well as English versions of the order of detention were served on him together with the grounds of detention which were also in Hindi and English versions.
The petitioner, made an elaborate and exhaustive representation to the State Government against the order of detention in an attempt to answer the grounds on which the order of detention was based, but this representation was rejected by the State Government on 24th April, 1974.
32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of his detention on various grounds.
