Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Whereas I. T. Ponnaiayya, I.P.S. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, am satisfied with respect of Sri Hamza Bin Omer alias Zafar Pahalwan s/o Omer Bin Ali, aged 32 years, r/o, Yasrabnagar, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and working as PC 918 SAR CPL Amberpet, Hyderabad, a Rowdy sheeter of Rein Bazar P.S., Hyderabad, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to make an order directing that the said Hamza Bin Omer alias Zafar Pahalwan shall be detained.
"The ground that the detenu was a man of desperate habits and dangerous character is vague. Apart from the vice of vagueness which perhaps may not matter so far as the satisfaction of the authorities is concerned, every desperate or dangerous man cannot be run down under Section 3 of the Act especially when this vital yet injurious dossier about the person has not been communicated to him and opportunity afforded for making a proper representation contra."

In that view of the matter, the order of detention was held to be violative both of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. It may be observed that the detenu was described as a "rowdy sheeter" in the order of detention; but it was not so stated in the grounds of detention. It is a mere description of the detenu and not a ground of detention. The fact that he was a 'rowdy sheeter' not being a ground of detention, in our view, it was not necessary for the detaining authority to supply any material to the detenu on the basis of which he was described as a 'rowdy sheeter'. That fact did not center the mind of the detaining authority in making the order of detention. A close study of the judgment relied upon by Mr. Abdul Khair Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, would disclose that in that case the fact that the man was of desperate habits and dangerous character was itself a ground of detention. Undoubtedly if the detention order was made upon such a conclusion reached by the detaining authority, it must be based on some material, the material on which that conclusion was reached must be supplied to the detenu. But where the person sought to be detained is merely described as a 'rowdy sheeter' in the order of detention and is not made a ground of detention, that element cannot be said to have entered into the mind of the detaining authority and formed the basis for reaching the conclusion that that person should be detained. It was therefore not necessary to supply the material on which the statement that the person sought to be detained is a 'rowdy sheeter' is made need not be supplied. No doubt in Mohd. Yousuf Rather v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (accused 1979 SC 1925) Chinnappa Reddy, J., in striking down the order of detention observed :

8. But it is pertinent to note that these observations were made with refence to the grounds of detention. In that case the grounds of detention began with the statement that the detenu was a die-hard naxalite and no material was placed to substantiate that statement. The learned Judge observed that it was placed to substantiate that statement. The learned Judge observed that it was just a lable which can be as misleading as any other and is perhaps, used occasionally for that very purposes. What was served on the detenu on 7-9-1982 was the order of detention and not the grounds of detention. The grounds of detention served on the detenu on 11-9-1982 nowhere refer to the detenu as a 'rowdy sheeter'. We are, therefore, not persuaded to hold that the order of detention is vitiated because it describes the detenu as a 'rowdy sheeter'. So long as that allegation is not made a ground of detention, as is clear from the grounds of detention served on the detenu, it cannot be held that the detaining authority was in any way influenced by the fact that the detenu was earlier noted as a 'rowdy sheeter' in the police records.

10. Thus, the Supreme Court, has struck a different note even with respects to introductory or preamble part of the grounds of detention. Even if the description of the detenu contained in the order of detention that he is a 'rowdy sheeter' is treated as forming part of the grounds of detention, in the light of what is stated by the Supreme Court in Dhananjoy Das v. District Magistrate (supra) the order of detention could not be said to be vitiated, much less could it be held to be unsustainable when it is not made a ground of detention, but is only mentioned by way of description of the detenu in the order of detention. In the instant case, that is precisely why there is no mention of the detenu being a 'rowdy sheeter' in the grounds of detention. This ground of attack is therefore, unsustainable.