1981 INSC 0143
                                               Shiv Parsad Bhatnagar

                                                           Vs

                                            State of M. P. and Another

                                          Writ Petition No. 397 of 1981

                                    (O. Chinnappa Reddy, Baharul Islam JJ)

                                                      05.03.1981

                                                     JUDGMENT

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. -

1. Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar is under preventive detention pursuant to an order made by the District
Magistrate, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh. The order and the grounds of detention were served on him
on November 28, 1980. The District Magistrate made a report of the order to the State Government
and the latter approved the detention order on December 2, 1980. The approval was communicated
too the detenu on December 5, 1980. A representation was submitted by the detenu on December
13, 1980. The Advisory Board constituted by the State Government met on January 3, 1981,
considered the material placed before it by the detaining authority as well as the representation and
the written arguments submitted by the detenu. The detenu was also given a personal hearing. The
Advisory Board submitted its report to the State Government on January 4, 1981. Thereafter the
State Government confirmed the order of detention on February 3, 1981 under Section 12(1) of the
National Security Act. The period of detention was stipulated as one year from the date of the order
of detention. The order confirming the detention was communicated to the detenu on February 12,
1981 and he was also informed that the Advisory Board had opined that there was sufficient cause
for his detention.

2. Smt. Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the detenu made a number of submission. In the view
that we are taking of one of the primary submission, we do not think it necessary to consider the rest
of the submission. The primary submission that we have in mind is that the grounds of detention
suffer from the vice of either vagueness or staleness. The first ground matins that the detenu along
with his friends, in the second week of November, 1980, indulged in filthy abuse of Muslims, given
to substitute the ground. As many as six incidents were mentioned and in every one of them it was
said that the detenu along with his associates had indulged in this or that violent action. No mention
was made of the name of even a single associate. The argument was that the reference to 'associate'
without naming even one rendered the ground vague and therefore, vitiated it. Similarly, it was said
the second ground also referred to the detenu and his associates without naming even a single
associate and for that reason the second ground also was vague. The further submission, was that the
incidents enumerated in second ground were of the years 1974, 1975, 1977 and 1978 and could by
no means be said to be proximate enough to sustain an order or preventive detention. The second
ground was to the effect that the detenu and his associates had terrorized the common man in the
Vidisha area by their various criminal acts which causes disturbance to public peace and public
safety. Several incidents were narrated to substantiate this ground. The first incident was of the year
12974, the second incident was of the year 1975, the next three incidents were of the year 1977 and
the rest of the incidents barring the last one were of the year 1978. A perusal of the incidents
enumerated to substantiate the second ground shows that apart from the vice of staleness from
which they appear to suffer, the incidents are related to "law and order" and not to the maintenance
of public order. The incidents appear to bear a striking resemblance to the ground of detention
which were considered In re Sushanta Goswami, particularly in the cases of Debendra Nath Das,
Abdul Waheb, Anil Das, Dilip Kumar Chakraborty and Ashoka Kumar Mukherjee. It is now well
settled that ground of detention must be pertinent and not irrelevant, proximate and not state precise
and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to
vitiate a ground of detention. And, a single vicious ground is sufficient that the second ground of
detention suffers both from the vice of staleness, because of the passage of time since the happening
of some of the incidents and the vice of irrelevance because they relate to 'law and order' and not to
'the maintenance of public order '. The detenu is entitled to be released. He is directed to be released
forthwith. The petition is allowed.

</html