P.C. Naik, J.
1. In exercise of powers conferred on him, under Section 3(z) of the National Security Act, 1980, (in short, 'the Act') the District Magistrate, Kalahandi passed an order on 13-11-2000 that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') be detained. Accordingly, he was taken into custody on 14-11-2000. Aggrieved therewith, the detenu has filed this writ petition challenging the order of detention and his continued detention under the Act.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated thus:
In connection with Bhaganipatna Town P.C. Case No. 138 dated 17-10-2000 under Sections. 307/34, I.P.C. the detenu was taken into custody the same day and was forwarded to the Court on 18-10-2000. on the basis of a confidential report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Kalahandi, the District Magistrate, Kalahandi being of the opinion and on being satisfied that in order to maintain public order, it was necessary to detain the detenu, an order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Kalahandi on 13-11-2000. the copy of the said order in Oriya and English was served on the detenu on 14-11-2000 and he knowledged receipt thereof by appending his signature on a copy of the said order. Intimation that he was taken on detention was also served on his mother the same day (14-11-2000) and she acknowledged receipt thereof by appending her signature on a copy of the said letter. The grounds of detention in Oriya and English along with material documents which were taken into consideration by the District Magistrate in coming to a subjective satisfaction were also served on the detenu on 14-11-2000 as is clear from the signature of the detenu which is attested by the Sub-Assistant Jailor. A report in terms of Section 3(4) of the Act was also sent to the Government on 14-11-2000. The order was approved by the State Government on 20-11-2000 and the order of approval was served on the detenu on 21-11-2000 which was duly acknowledged by him. The State Government in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act sent a report to the Central Government on 21-11-2000 which was received in the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi on 30-11-2000. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board which held its meeting on 18-12-2000. The detenu was heard in person. The Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The State Government on a consideration of the report and all the material that were placed before it, confirmed the order of detention on 2-1-2001 and this order was duly served on the detenu in District Jail, Bhawanipatna on 10-2-2001.
It appears from the record of the District Magistrate and also the State Government that after confirmation of the order of detention, the detenu on 1-2-2001 submitted six representation/petitions addressed to the Governor, Orissa, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Orissa, Secretary, Home, Government of India and Members of the N.S.H. Board etc. On receiving the same, the District Magistrate forwarded the representation to the State Government on 2-2-2001. Since one of the representations was addressed to the Advisory Board, the State Government forwarded that some to the Board which was placed before it (Board) on 15-2-2001. The Board considered the same and opined that since on a reference being made to it, it had given an opinion on 21-12-2000 that there was sufficient cause for detention of the detenu there was no scope for the Board to consist the representation made to it subsequent to its opinion dated 21-12-2000. On receiving the report, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the same on 12-2-2001.
As is clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India, the report in terms of Section 3(5) of the Act sent to it on 21-11-2000 was received by it is in the concerned Ministry on 30-11-2000. The representation of the detenu dated 1-2-2001 was forwarded to it by the State Government- on 5-2-2001 was received by it i.e., the Central Government on 14-2-2001. After duly examining/ considering the material, the Union Government did not find any good ground to revoke the order of detention and it accordingly, rejected the representation on 19-2-2001 (17-2-2001 and 18-2-2001 being third Saturday and Sunday). The fact of rejection was duly communicated to the detenu through a wireless message dated 20-2-2001. The above facts are clear from the record of the District Magistrate and also of the State Government.
3. The order of detention is challenged on the grounds that (i) the order under Section 3(2) of the Act was not served on the detenu; (ii) the grounds of detention were served late, i.e., on 25-11-2000; (iii) the facts of the detenu's representation dated 12-12-2000 to the Advisory Board was not intimated to the detenu; (iv) the representation dated 1-2-2001 was not disposed of; (v) the ground on which the detenu was detained relates to law and order and not to public order; (vi) the statutory safeguard and the requirement of Sections. 3(4) and 3(5) of the Act were not fulfilled; and (vii) all the relevant material including his representation were not placed before the Advisory Board for consideration.
4. English version of the order of detention dated 13-11-2000 and the Oriya version thereof are at pages 14 and 15 of the file of the District Magistrate. Both these orders bear the signature of the detenu Satyasai Nayak and the signatures are attested by the Assistant Jailor, District Jail, Bhawanipatna on 14-11-2000. The signature on these documents matches with the signature of the detenu on the Vakalatnama. Therefore, the contention that the order of detention was not served on the detenu has to be rejected. Incidentally, at page 16 of the said file is a copy of the relevant intimation sent to the detenu's mother Hemlata Nayak which was duly acknowledged by them. Likewise, the grounds of detention along with annexures were served on the detenu on 14-11-2000 and is acknowledgment thereof, the detenu has appended his signature on each page, both in English and Oriya versions of the grounds of detention. His signature has been attested by the Sub -Assistant Jailor, District Jail, Bhanwanipatna on 14-11-2000. From this, it is clear that the grounds of detention along with supporting material was served on the detenu on 14-11-2000. The contention, therefore, that there was delay in furnishing the grounds of detention on him and that the grounds of detention were served on 25-11-2000 has to be rejected.
5. The contention that the detenu had submitted a representation 12-12-2000 cannot be accepted. We have gone through the opinion of the Advisory Board which is in the file of the State Government. The report specifically indicates that the detenu did not make any representation. The report also indicates that the detenu was produced before the Board in person on 18-12-2000. But there is nothing to indicate that he had made any grievance to the Board that he had submitted a representation which was not placed before it for consideration. Had the detenu, in fact, made a representation, he would certainly have made a reference to it before the Board or made a grievance that it was not placed before it for its consideration. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the detenu (petitioner) had made a reference to what he terms as 'a contradiction' in the counter filed by the District Magistrate and the State Government. It was submitted that the District Magistrate states that the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was not received whereas the State Government in its counter-affidavit has admitted that the representation addressed to the Advisory Board was received from the District Magistrate. Accordingly, a reference to the respective counter-affidavit becomes necessary. The submission was made probably on a misreading or misinterpretation of the averments made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the District Magistrate and paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government. Paragraph 7 of the counter of the District Magistrate is in reply to paragraph 6 of the writ petition which reads thus:
6. That on 12-12-2000, the petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board. Copy thereof is submitted as Annexure-3. The petitioner has never intimated the result thereof. Nothing was intimated as to whether it was placed before the Advisory Board or it considered the representation or not.
In its counter, the District Magistrate in paragraph 7 has averred thus :
7. That in reply to the averments made in para 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner has never submitted any representation addressed to the Chairman, Advisory Board as reflected in Annexure-5 through the District Magistrate, Kalahandi. Hence the question of its being placed before the Advisory Board for consideration does not arise....
Thus, the aforesaid averment is a specific reply to the detenu's alleged representation dated 12-12-2000 (Annexure-2). Incidentally, a copy of the said representation is at page 16 of the writ petition. It does not even bear the date on which it was supposed to have been sent. In its counter, the reference made by the State Government regarding the representation which was received from the District Magistrate is to the representation which was submitted by the detenu on 1-2-2001 and the fact that this representation was received by the District Magistrate and forwarded by it to the State Government has been admitted by the District Magistrate. If paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit of the State Government is read as a whole, this position becomes obvious. We, therefore, think it appropriate to quote relevant portions of paragraph 9 of the said counter which reads thus :
9. That as regards the averments made in para 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that the petitioner submitted representation dt. 1-2-2001 addressed to State Government, Central Government and N.S.A. Board which was received in Home (SS) Department on 6-2-2001 along with parawise comments of O.P. No. 2.
The representation addressed to Central Government and N.S.A. Board were forwarded to them for their consideration on the same day vide Home (SS) Deptt. vide Letter No. 750/C and 751/C. dt. 6-2-2001. The representation of the petitioner dt. 1-2-2001 addressed to the State Government received from O.P. No. 2 on 6-2-2001 was put up in file on the same day before the Commissioner-curn-Secretary, Home Department and the same was endorsed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister on 7-2-2001 and the Hon'ble Chief Minister rejected the representation on 12-2-2001....
There may have been some delay on the part of the State Government in communi-eating the result of his representation to the detenu, as alleged. But, this is not ma-terial because the representation was filed after the report of the Advisory Board and after the order had been confirmed by the State Government. However, from the record and on a perusal of the order, it is clear that the representation of the detenu was rejected by the State Government on 12-2-2001 and in the intervening period, it had referred the same to the Advisory Board, which as has been stated above, had given its opinion on 21-12-2000 that there was sufficient cause for his detention and a representation sub-jmitted by the detenu after the report could not be considered. Therefore, the contention that since the order was communicated on 7-3-2001, it is to be presumed that the representation was to be treated as having been disposed of on 1-3-2001 cannot be accepted and is accordingly rejected. Further, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it appears that Annexure-3 was brought into existence merely for the purpose of this case and was, in fact, not submitted, as alleged.
6. Another ground, on which the order is assailed is that the incident in question relates to 'law and order' and not 'public order' and, as such, the action in detaining the detenu is bad in law. Before dealing with the contention, we think it appropriate to quote relevant extracts from the ground with respect to which the objection was raised.
On 17-10-2000, at about 10.30 A.M., while the victim girl Poonam Singhal d/o Sri Bansilal Singhal of Purnapada, Bhawanipatna Town was returning from Govt. Women's College, Bhawanipatna, near Town High School, you have caught hold of her hair and poured acid on her head and face in broad day light and in an open public place. The said victim, Poonam is a student of 1st year Arts of Government Women's College, Bhawanipatna. There were other four students with her at that time who ran away from the place out of fear. The victim Poonam fell down on the road with burning head/face, left side neck and left side breast. After observing your heinous crime in busy locality in broad day light the entire public life in and around the scene of crime was disrupted. People ran helter and skelter to save themselves. All the shopkeepers in the locality downed their shutters in panic. The by-standers and road side vendors ran away for safety and in a panic striken condition and the traffic in and around the area came to a standstill. It appeared for sometime as if Curfew has been imposed in the area. Such was the fear of your activity.... On the report of the brother of the abovesaid victim girl, Rajesh Singhal Bhawanipatna Town P.S. Case No. 138 dt. 17-10-2000 under Sections. 307/34,1.P.C.was registered which is under investigation. You were arrested on the same day and forwarded to Court on 18th October, 2000. You are now in jail custody.
The throwing of acid on a girl, first incident of this nature in Kalahandi Dist. has created panic, public resentment, anger and sense of fear among the people of the town particularly among the females and girls. Seeing the severity of the acid injury, thousands of general public had gathered at Dist. H. Qrs. Hospital, Bhawanipatna having sympathy on the victim girl. Their resentment and anger were so severe that higher Police Authorities have to go to the Medical Hospital to explain the position and make them calm.
On 19-10-2000 students and members of voluntary organisations brought out rallies in Bhawanipatna town and held protest meetings at Schools and Colleges of Kesinga, Junagarh, Dharamgarh and Nuapada towns in which the students and members of the organisations have demanded drastic action against you and arrest of your two other associates, protection of girl students, police patrolling in college and school areas etc....
This incident has been highlighted in different newspapers.... This incident has created a sense of fear psychosis in the minds of the people of Bhawanipatna town and the people are afraid of sending their girl children to schools/colleges anticipating similar attack on their children....
It is clear that your activities are not only of criminal nature but have affected the public order at large. The peace loving citizens of the abovementiohed areas particularly the girls and the females are feeling threatened and insecure to discharge their day to day normal public life. This has created an atmosphere among the public and particularly among the girls. Hence, the public order has been badly affected by your inhuman activities. Your act of pouring acid on the body of Poonam Singhal (Victim) while she was on her way to house from college has caused disturbance in the even tempo of living and disturbed public order. You have disturbed the society and the female community....
The act of the detenu affected the public at large and disturbed the even tempo of society - its peace and tranquillity. May be this was a single incident, as causing burn injuries would be an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. But what is to be seen for the purpose of detention is iwhether or not the incident had disturbed the even tempo of society though it might have been directed against a particular in- dividual. This aspect has been considered by the District Magistrate in the grounds and he has detailed therein the factors which led him to come to a satisfaction that the even tempo of society was disturbed to the ex- tent of causing general disturbances of pub-lic tranquillity. It cannot be denied that it is the degree of disturbance and its effect, upon the life of the community in a locality which determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or it affects public order. In the case at hand, the impact, of the incident was such that it did disturb the even tempo of life of the com- rnunity jeopardising public order. The sat-isfaction arrived at by the District Magistrate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be erroneous or unwarranted. Thus, even assuming for the sake of argument that the other grounds relied upon in the order of detention do not relate to public order, that cannot, in view of the provisions contained in Section 5A of the Act invalidate the order of detention as the order can be sustained and shall be deemed to have been made with reference to the remaining ground which, as has been held above, relates to public order.
7. As regards the contention that the order of detention is bad in law as it has been passed on the basis of a single incident, also cannot be accepted. This aspect came up for consideration before this very Bench in Baba alias Rahat Khan v. State of Orissa (O.J.C. No. 1790 of 2001 disposed of on 9-8-2001). In paragraph 12 of the said judgment it was observed thus :
12. ...What, is relevant for the purpose-of passing an order of detention is not the number of incidents or grounds which are considered, but the fact as to whether or not the act/acts which have been committed by the detenu was/were such as the same was/were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If the act. is such as will have the effect of disturbing the even tempo of society and undoubtedly causes fear and panic in the minds of the public at large and disturbs or affects the even tempo of life of the community, then such an act can be basis of an order of detention....
After discussing the fact situation and the grounds on which the order of detention was passed in Baba alias Rahat Khan's case (supra), in said paragraph 12 it was observed thus :.In our opinion, therefore, the act. definitely had the result of disturbing the even tempo of life and, as such, was out of the realm of law and order and came within the realm of public order, and, as such, the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to pass a detention order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be said to be unfounded or unwarranted.
8. The fact situation in that case was that the detenu along with others had entered a shop and demanded 'Dada Bati' of Rs. 7,000/- on the point of revolver. On refusal of the shopkeeper to do so, he was assaulted and given a threat that they would come again in the evening to collect the amount. Later, the same day, the detenu along with others had entered the shop and broke the glasses of the shop and opened fire with a revolver aiming at the workers and left the premises. Thereafter, the detenu entered into the garage opposite to the shop where they assaulted the shopkeeper, smashed the furniture and glasses of the adjoining modern store and opened fire. Because of this, there was complete panic in the area. The shops were closed, vehicular traffic came to a standstill and the entire locality became deserted for some time. In other words, the things came to a standstill. Considering the nature of the incident, the Court in the aforesaid case observed that such activity in broad day light in a business locality is bound to create panic and terror in the minds of the shopkeepers, business and the public at a large on the street resulting in disturbing the even tempo of life of the community in that area. Accordingly, in the case at hand, the contention that the incident in question related to 'law and order' and not 'public order' needs to be and is hereby rejected. In our considered opinion, the incident, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, clearly related to disturbance of public order and the District Magistrate was fully justified in taking it as the basis for an order of detention.
9. It was also contended that the order is liable to be set aside for non-compliance of the statutory safeguard and requirement of Sections 3(4) and 3(5) of the Act. This contention also cannot be accepted.
The record indicates that the order of the detention dated 13-11-2000 was served on the detenu the very next day (14-11-2000) along with the grounds of detention. The representations of the detenu dated 1-2-2001 addressed to the State Government, Central Government and the N.S.A. Board were forwarded by the District Magistrate on 2-2-2001 and was received by the Home Department on 6-2-2001, It. was processed by the Home Department and forwarded to the office of Chief Minister who rejected the same on 12-2-2001, 10th and 11th February, 2001 being second Saturday and Sunday respectively. Thus, the representation was disposed of within a period of four days including holidays which cannot be said to be belated and the rejection order of the State Government was duly communicated to the detenu.
10. At this stage, it may be stated that the detenu had not initially made any representation and it was only after approval/ confirmation of the order by the State Government, the representations were made by the detenu which were duly considered and rejected by the State Government and the Union of India. The representation was also forwarded to the Union of India by the State Government vide its letter dated 6-2-2001. The same was received by the Central Government on 14-2-2001 and was duly considered and rejected on 19-2-2001 within a period of five days including 17-2-2001 and 18-2-2001 which were public holidays which again cannot be said to be belated consideration. The report contemplated under Section 3(5) of the Act was also forwarded to the Central Government on 21-11-2001, i.e., within the prescribed period. From the above, it is clear that there has been no infraction of the constitutional or statutory safeguard provided to the detenu that may call for annulling of the detention order. This contention also needs to be and is hereby rejected.
11. The contention that all the relevant material including the representation was not placed before the Advisory Board is mentioned to be rejected. As observed in the earlier part of the judgment, no representation was filed by the detenu on 12-12-2000, as alleged, and it was only filed on 1-2-2001 i.e., after the Board had given its report and the order of detention was approved by the State Government. These, as observed above, were duly considered and rejected. The record indicates that all relevant material was before the Advisory Board, State Governement and the Central Government on the basis of which, decisions were taken by them. In view of the above, no interference with the order of detention is called for on this ground also.
12. A grievance was also made to the inaction of the Central Government in not taking any action on the basis of the report received by it under Section 3(5) of the Act. It was also contended that the Central Government erred in not taking any decision on the basis of the report received by it under Section 3(5) of the Act and this inaction of the Central Government has prejudiced the detenu. This contention cannot be accepted. This aspect and the scope of the provisions contained in Sections 3(5) and 14 of the Act have also been dealt with by this Bench in Baba alias Rahat Khan's case (supra). In paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof, it has been observed thus :.it may be stated that the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act only relate to sending a report to the Central Government of the fact that an order of detention has been approved by the State Government. This does not lay upon the Central Government a duty to further approve or disapprove the order of detention. The power to approve or not to approve which, in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, in the case at hand, vests with the State Government. Provisions of Section 14 are not to be read or confused with the provisions contained in Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. The contention raised by the learned counsel is, probably because of reading the provisions of Section 14 or Sub-section (4) of Section 3 into Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act.Once a report is made to the Central Government under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act, that is the end of the matter as far as the scheme under Section 3 of the Act is concerned. Section 14 of the Act, on the other hand, relates to revocation of detention orders and Clause. (b) of Section 14 of the Act vests with the Central Government the power to revoke the order of detention, even though an order is passed by the State Government. This section does not lay down any time limit within which this power is to be exercised. The representations which are addresed to the Central Government, in our view, are considered by the Central Government in the light of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act and when a representation addressed to the Central Government is rejected by it, it is, in fact, a refusal on its part to revoke the order of detention. The representation is considered in the light of the material forwarded by the State Government along with the report under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Central Government mechanically rejected the representations.
9. Neither Sub-section (4) of Section 3 nor the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act oblige the State Government or the Central Government to call for further opinion from the detaining authority or the detenu. Approval contemplated in Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act by the State Government is to be accorded or the power for revocation of detention order under Section 14 of the Act is to be exercised on the basis of the material before the State Government or the Central Govrernment, as the case may be, and in this case, it cannot be said that there was no material on record on the basis of which, the decision was taken. The contention, therefore, that approval of detention order and rejection of detenu's (petitioner) representation by the State Government or the Central Government was mechanical and without application of mind, cannot be accepted.
13. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.K. Patra, J.
14. I agree.