1 Writ Petition No.7877/2012 12.12.2012 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Govt.
Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.2.2012 passed under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and his detention thereunder.
The respondent no.2, District Magistrate, has passed the order detaining the petitioner under section 3(2) of the Act.
The grounds which were served on the petitioner mainly relate to the slaughtering of cows and their transportation contrary to the provisions of M.P.Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam Evam Niyam, 2004, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
The grounds recites that the petitioner has in fact committed such offences on several occasions such as 7.6.1994, 20.4.2002, 2.2.2005, 8.12.2005, 22.2.2007, 5.8.2007, 3.4.2010, 2.8.2011 and 1.9.2011 in various manneRs.The most severe allegation which has been levelled against the petitioner is in respect of the incident dated 3.4.2010 where the petitioner is said to have transported about 44 cows and calves in a truck out of which 39 cows are said to have died resulting in angering the Hindu community.
According to the detaining authority the police was called to control the situation.
We are informed that the petitioner has also been convicted in respect of the said offence and the appeal in pending.
We have given our anxious consideration to this 2 incident and others which are relatively minot in nature and we find that the petitioner is indeed guilty of serious wrong which has the potential of hurting the sentiments of the majority community.
However, in these proceedings, we are not concerned so much with the commission of the alleged offence as it has no impact on public order since Section 3(2) of the Act empowers the authorities to detain a person “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order etc.”
.We find from the recitals in the statement in the grounds of detention that the petitioner has been charged with transporting cows and calves by truck not MP09 HF 945.on National Highway No.12 when the truck overturned resulting in the death of cows.
The incident is, thus, clearly one, which happened on a Highway and it is difficult to apprehend how the incident could have had any impact on public order as is understood by Courts occurring in section 3(2) of the Act.
It is well known to law that there may be offences which may not affect public order for the maintenance of which the Parliament has enacted preventive detention law.
(See.
Ram Manohar Lohia versus The State of Bihar, AIR 196.SC 74.Paras 66, 67).We find there are other incidents referred to in the grounds such as threatening and abusing done by the petitioner and the alleged smuggling of sandalwood and gambling.
Further, it seems the petitioner was arrested on another occasion for stuffing bulls in a truck and that too after tying them out and keeping them hungry.
It is not disputed, however, that the petitioner is being prosecuted for each of these incidents and in some cases the trial is 3 pending.
We, however, find that it is not possible to infer a threat to public order as is understood in law and it appears that these are the incidents which can be dealt with properly and even severely under the ordinary law of the land for which prosecution have been launched.
In W.P.No.21930/2011 – Monty @ Maneesh Rajak versus State of M.P., decided on 7.9.2012, a Division Bench of this court has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima versus State of Manipur and otheRs.(2012).SCC 17.and Munagale Yadamma versus State of Andhra Pradesh and otheRs.(2012).SCC 386.wherein the Supreme Court has held that if the offences complained of against the person are of a nature which can be dealt with under the ordinary law of land, taking recouRs.to the provisions of preventive detention is contrary to the constitutional guarantees enshrined in Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench in the above referred cases.
In the circumstances, this petition is allowed.
The impugned order of detention dated 21.2.2012 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule made absolute.
There shall be no order as to cost.
(S.A.Bobde) (M.C.Garg) Chief Justice Judge HS