tion No 102 of 1969
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
Vinoo Bhagat for the petitioner
SP Mitra GS Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri J
This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Shyamal Chakraborty who has been detained under the hereinafter referred to as the Act
Three grounds have been urged by the learned counsel why we should issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his release 1 that the detenu s representation was not considered by the Government 2 that the grounds furnished to the detenu mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code and cannot be used for the purpose of detaining the detenu except in emergencies and 3 that the grounds do not have any relation to the maintenance of public order
Following are the facts as they emerge from the affidavits on record The detenu was detained by an order No 3846 DD S dated 13th November 1968 passed by the Commissioner of Police Calcutta in exercise of powers conferred on him by section 32 of the Act
The detenu was arrested on November 13 1968 and was served with the grounds of detention both in English and in vernacular on the same day
On 15th November
1968 the Commissioner of Police reported the fact of such detention of the petitioner together with the grounds and other particulars having bearing on the necessity of the order to
the State Government
On 19th November 1968 the Governor was pleased to approve the said order of detention under section 33 of the Act and on the same day the Governor submitted the report to the Central Government under section 34 of the Act together with grounds and other particulars having bearing on the necessity of the order
On 7th December 1968 his case was placed before the Advisory Board under section 9 of the Act
On 6th January 1969 the Advisory Board after consideration of the materials placed before it was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner
The petitioner had not submitted any representation to the State Government till then
By an order dated 8th January 1969 the Governor was pleased to confirm the order of detention
It appears that on the 13th January 1969 and 16th January 1969 the detenu made 764 representations
After the receipt of these representations the same were sent by the Home Department to the Commissioner of Police for his report
On 1st April 1969 the Commissioner of Police informed the Home Department that he did not recommend the release of the petitioner
But the representations of the petitioner were not received back from the Commissioner of Police with his letter of the 1st April 1969
Later on the Commissioner of Police sent back the representation dated 13th January 1969 to the Home Department
This Court on 28th March 1969 issued a notice under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Commissioner of Police and to the State Government to show cause why rule nisi should not be issued made returnable three weeks hence
On receipt of this notice the State Government refrained from passing any order on the representation dated 13th January 1969
The representation dated 16th January 1969 is untraceable but effort is being made to trace it
According to the Commissioner of Police it was on the same lines as the representation dated 13th January 1969
It is necessary to
reproduce the grounds of detention served on the detenu and they are in the following terms  You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made under sub section 2 of section 3 of the Act IV of 1950 on the following grounds You have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by the commission of offences of rioting assault etc
as detailed below 1 That on 28 6 68 at about 6 p m
you along with your associates being armed with lathis iron rods acid bulbs etc
committed a riot in Kumartuli Park in course of which you severely assaulted Shri Amal Krishna Roy of 20A Abhoy Mitra Street and iron rods acid bulbs etc
were indiscriminately used endangering human lives
2 That on 23 7 68 at about 610 pm you along with your associates being armed with lathis iron rod hockey sticks etc
attacked constables Sankar Lal Bose and Jagdish Singh both of Shyampukur PS on Kaliprosad Chakraborty Street near the Gaudiya Math who went there to
discharge their lawful duties as a result of which constable Sankar Lal Bose sustained bleeding injuries on his person
3 That in the night of 3 10 68 between 1150 pm and 130 am you along with your associates being 765 armed with deadly weapons took part in a riot at Rabindra Sarani from Bug Bazar Street crossing to Kumartuli Street crossing in course of which bombs brickbats and soda water bottles were indiscriminately hurled endangering human lives
You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal Home Department Special Section Writers  Buildings Calcutta and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible
You are also informed that under section 10 of the Act IV of 1950 the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government
Coming now to the first point raised by the learned counsel it seems to us that there has been no breach of the provisions of the Act
This Court has held that it is obligatory on the Government to deal with the representations made by the detenu but the facts recited above show that the detenu did not choose to make a representation before the Advisory Board dealt with the matter and further the State Government was in the process of dealing with the representation when this Court issued the notice
Moreover in the representation dated 13th January 1969 the detenu barely stated that the grounds were false and that the detenu was a poor man and the family conditions were miserable and he was living peacefully in the town and had never committed any act which was manifestly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or communal harmony
He prayed that under the circumstances I am to request you to kindly produce
me before the Advisory Board and release me
 At that stage it was impossible to produce him before the Advisory Board
The Advisory Board had already dealt with the matter
Under these circumstances we are unable to say that there has been a breach of section 7
We trust that the State Government will now immediately deal with the representation or representations and pass a suitable order
It will be convenient to deal with the points 2 and 3 mentioned above together
It is true as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court has consistently held that the grounds must have relevance to the maintenance of public order and that they should not relate merely to the maintenance of 766 order
It is true as laid down by this Court that the contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large
As Ramaswami J put it in Pushkar Mukherjee  Ors
vs The State of West Bengal1 in this connection we must draw a line of demarcation between serious and aggravated forms of disorder which directly affect the community or injure the public interest and the relatively minor breaches of peace of a purely local significance which primarily injure specific individuals and only in a secondary sense public interest
 The question which arises is this do the grounds reproduced above relate merely to maintenance of order or do they relate to the maintenance of public order  It will be noticed that the detenu in each of these cases acted along with associates who were armed with lathis iron rods acid bulbs etc
It is clearly said in ground No 1 that he committed a riot and indiscriminately used acid bulbs iron rods lathis etc
endangering human lives
This ground cannot be said to have reference merely to maintenance of order because it affects the locality and everybody who lives in the locality
Similarly in the second ground he alongwith his associates prevented the police constables from discharging their lawful duties and thus affected everybody living in the locality
In ground No 3 again the whole locality was in danger as the detenu and his associates were armed with deadly weapons and these were in fact used for indiscriminately endangering human lives in the locality
The object of the detenu seems to have been to terrorise the locality and bring the whole machinery of law and order to a halt
We are unable to say that the Commissioner of Police could not in view of these grounds come to the conclusion that the detenu was likely to
act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the future and it was necessary to prevent him from doing so
The fact that public order is affected by an act which was also an offence under the Indian Penal Code seems to us to be irrelevant
In the result the petition fails and is dismissed
GC Petition dismissed


Summary:
The petitioner was arrested and detained by an order of the Commissioner of Police Calcutta under section 32 of the 
According to the grounds of detention supplied to him his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order 
The petitioners  case was placed before the Advisory Board and on obtaining its opinion the Governor confirmed the order of detention
It was after this that the petitioner made representations to the State Government
Then he filed the present petition under article 32 of the Constitution based on the following grounds i that there was a breach of section 7 of the Act inasmuch as his representation s were not considered by the Government ii that the grounds furnished to him mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code and these could not be used for the purpose of detention except in emergencies iii that the grounds did not have any relation to public HELD i It is obligatory on the Government to deal with the representations made by the detenu but in the present case the detenu made his representations only after the Advisory Board had dealt with the matter
The State Government was in the process of dealing with his representation
In the circumstances it could not be said that there had been a breach of section 7 of the Act
765 E G ii The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large
766 A Pushkar Mukherjee  Ors
vs The State of West Bengal   applied
The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu in the present case showed that on one occasion he took part in rioting along with associates armed with lathis iron rods and acid bulbs
On another occasion he took part in assaulting a constable on duty
On a third occasion he and his associates were armed with deadly weapons which were actually used in indiscriminately endangering human lives in the locality
766 C D From these activities the object of the detenu seems to have been to terrorise the locality and bring the whole machinery of law and order to a halt
The conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the future and it was necessary to prevent him from doing so was justified
766 E F 763 The fact that public sector was affected by an act which was also an offence under the Indian Penal Code was irrelevant
766 F