Criminal Appeal No 219 of 1990
214 WITH Writ Petition Crl No 92 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 12121989 of the Allahabad High Court in Habeas Corpus WP No 13644 of 1989
A Jaitley Additional Solicitor General RK Jain Yogeshwar Prasad Gaurav Jain Abha Jain D Bhandari Ms A Subhashini and RB Misra for the Appearing Parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by section RATNAVEL PANDIAN J
Leave granted in the Special Leave Petition
This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 121289 in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No 1364489 passed by the High Court at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Vashisht Narain Karwaria the detenu herein
The District Magistrate Allahabad in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 33 of the hereinafter referred to as Act  passed the impugned order of detention on 31388 against the detenu on reaching his requisite subjective satisfaction on consideration of the materials placed before him that it had become necessary to pass the detention order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The salient and material facts which necessitated the detaining authority to pass the impugned order as set out in the grounds of detention are as follows On 3031988 at about 330 PM the auction of liquor shops for the sale of Indian made foreign liquor was held in the campus of Collectorate at Allahabad
A large number of bidders were present
Among them the detenu along with his three other associates also participated in the auction
At about 330 PM the auction of the liquor shop within the area of Mooratganj took place
For this shop the first bid was from one Ajai Kumar for Rs one lakh
The next bid for the same shop was of Chedi Lal for Rs one lakh and ten thousand
The moment the said two persons made their bid the detenu along with his associates stood UP in the presence of all prospective bidders and told Ajai Kumar Chedi Lal and others that the above said shop fell within his area and therefore if anybody dared to bid the shop in the auction he Would shoot him and also the entire members of his 215 family
So saying the detenu along with his associates advanced towards Ajai Kumar and Chedi Lal threatening them with dire consequences
This created terror and panic among all the bidders
As the situation was becoming worse Shri Rana Pratap Singh Station House Officer along with other police officials advanced towards the detenu and his associ ates to apprehend them
On seeing the police party advanc ing the detenu fired at the police party with his country made pistol
Fortunately no body was hurt
The detenu however escaped on being chased by the police party
The detenu fired another two shots and hurled bombs on the police party while fleeing away
His repeated firing and explosion of bombs created further panic and the people assembled for bidding the auction started running away and the nearby shopkeepers pulled down their shutters of their shops
The vehicles parked there fled away
Thus the public order was completely disrupted
In connection with this incident a case was registered in crime No 22188 in the Colenolganj Police Station under Section 307 and 506 of Indian Penal Code
The case is still under investigation
On the basis of the above material the detaining author ity on being satisfied that there was apprehension of com mission of act of violence at the hands of the detenu which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order passed this impugned order and directed the detenu to be kept under detention
Admittedly along with his ground of detention 4 docu ments were enclosed and served on the detenu
Those docu ments are 1 Report of SSP Allahabad dated 313
2 Report of the SHO Colenolganj Police Station
3 Copy Chik No199 Crime No 221 of 1988 under Section 307506 IPC in Colenolganj Police Station Allahabad
4 Copy of GD No 37 relating to the aforesaid offence
The detenu challenged the validity of this order before the High Court but became unsuccessful
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment this appeal is now preferred
Mr RK Jain the learned Sr counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made a number of submissions at the hearing one of which being that the sponsoring authority had placed 216 certain irrelevant and extraneous matters before the detain ing authority which should have influenced the mind of the detaining authority and stealthily crept into the decision of the said authority directing detention of the detenu and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed
This argument was resisted by Shri Dalveer Bhandari the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the detaining authority had not considered any other material save the material referred to in the grounds of detention 
Therefore the short question for our consideration is whether the sponsoring authority has placed before the detaining authority any extraneous and irrelevant materials which might have influenced the mind of the detaining au thority
It cannot be disputed indeed there is none that the four documents referred to above copies of which were furnished to the detenu have been placed before the detain ing authority
It follows that the detaining authority passed this order only on consideration of the above said materials
In the confidential letter dated 31st March 1988 sent by the Senior Superintendent of Police Allahabad to the detaining authority it is stated thus It is stated that the accused is a hardened criminal and has a gang
Such persons are committing heinous crimes often which adversely affects the public order
There are many casesoffences against accused Vashistha narayan registered in various police stations
It has become his habit to commit offences  
Hence I recommend that an order for atleast 12 months detention be passed against Shri Vashisht Narayan Karwaria alias Bhukkhal son of late Shri Jagat Narayankarwaria the aforesaid accused under Section 32 of the above mentioned Act
 The preamble of the letter submitted by the Station House Officer of Colenolganj Allahabad dated 313
1988 to the Senior Superintendent of Police Allahabad reads as follows It is submitted that Shri Vashisht Narayan Karwaria alias Bhukkal the aforesaid accused is a hardened criminal and has a gang
In his gang his son Kapil and two other big offenders Ram Chandra Tripathi and Santosh Kumar Tripathi son of Gaya Prasad resident of Ganspur PS Poormufti District Allahabad are included
These 217 people often used to commit heinous crimes by which terror and fear prevails in the people
Many crimes are registered against Vashisht Narayan Karwaria in many Police Stations
 The above averments made in the above two letters the copies of which are furnished to the detenu along with grounds of detention unequivocally and clearly spell out that the detenu is a hardened criminal having a gang under his control often committing heinous crimes that many cases against the detenu are registered in various police stations and that he is in the habit of committing offences
No doubt these averments are not made mention of in the grounds of detention
But can it be said that these materi als placed before the authority might not have influenced the mind of the detaining authority in taking the decision of detaining the detenu In our view the above averments which are extraneous touching the character of the detenu though not referred to in the Grounds of detention might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority to some extent one way or other in reaching the subjective satis faction to take the decision of directing the detention of the detenu
As rightly pointed out by Mr Jain had these extraneous materials not been placed before the detaining authority he might or might not have passed this order
Therefore we have to hold that the detention order is suffering from the vice of consideration of extraneous materials vitiating the validity of the order
There are several pronouncements of this Court on this point of which we will make mention of to the following decisions Ram Krishna Paul vs The Government of West Bengal  Ors  Smt
Pushpa vs Union of India  Others 1980 Supp
SCC 39 1 Merugu Satyanarayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh  Ors 1 and Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan vs Police Commissioner Ahmedabad and Another Mr Dalveer Bhandari relying on Section 5A of the Act urged that the order of detention should not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely on the ground that some extra neous materials were placed before the detaining authority since those alleged extraneous materials have no bearing on the validity of this impugned order which can be sustained on the material set out in the Grounds of detention itself
Placing reliance on decision of this Court in Prakash Chan dra Mehta vs Commissioner and Secretary Govt
of Kerala and Others 1985 Supp
SCC 144 wherein it has been observed that the grounds  under Article 225 of the Constitution do not mean mere factual 218 inferences but mean factual inferences plus factual material submitted that in the present case the factual material set out in the grounds of detention alone led to the passing of the order with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
We are unable to see any force in the above submis sion
What Section 5A provides is that where there are two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu each activity is a separate ground by itself and if one of the grounds is vague nonexistent not relevant not con nected or not proximately connected with such person or invalid for any other reason whatsoever then that will not vitiate the order of detention
It is not the case that this impugned order has been made on the two or more grounds covering various activities of the detenu but on the other hand the order has been passed on the sole ground relatable to a single incident
The conclusion arrived at by us is only on the basis that the aforesaid extraneous materials placed before the de taining authority might have influenced the mind of the detaining authority but not on the ground that one of the grounds of the detention order has become invalid or inoper ative for the reasons mentioned in Section 5Aa
The next submission made by Mr Jain on behalf of the detenu is on the basis of Ground Nos
VII  VIII of the Special Leave Petition in which the appellant has expressed his grievance that he had been deprived of making an effec tive and purposeful representation as envisaged under Arti cle 225 of the Constitution of India since no particulars or details are given in documents I  H enclosed with the grounds of detention in regard to the alleged many casesoffences  said to have been registered in various police stations against him and in regard to the allegations that he was a hardened criminal and had a gang often commit ting heinous crimes and that it had become the habit of the detenu to commit offences
In support of this contention reference was made to the decision in Mehboob Khan Nawab Khan Pathan s case ibid
No denial is made in the counter filed on behalf of the first respondent
This latter submis sion in our opinion cannot be rejected as having no force
In the result we without going into the merits of the other contentions allow this appeal quash the detention order and direct the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith
219 ORDER The Writ Petition is connected with the Criminal Appeal No 219 of 1990 arising out of SLP Crl No 247389
The detention order under challenge in both the proceedings is the one passed by the District Magistrate Allahabad on 3131988 under Section 33 of the 
As we have now set aside the order of detention in the Criminal Appeal no order is necessary in this Writ Peti tion
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly
TNA Appeal allowed and Petition disposed of


Summary:
In the Writ Petition flied in this Court the validity of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 levying market fee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce was challenged for lack of legislative competence and arbitrary inclusion of Khandsari Shakkar Gur and Sugar as agricul tural produce in the Schedule
It was contended that inclu sion of sugar was arbitrary inasmuch as it being a declared commodity of public importance under Entry 52 of List I of Schedule VII the State Legislature was precluded from legislating on it and that being a mill or factory produce it could not be deemed to be agricultural produce which was basically confined to produce of or from soil
Dismissing the Petitions this Court HELD 11 Sugar is one of the items which was included in the Schedule to the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Mar kets Act 1961 statutorily right from the inception
Such inclusion is found in many States
Whether it was subse quently deleted or re included or regrouped or was added later was immaterial as Section 40 of the Act empowered State Government to amend or include any item in the Sched ule of agricultural produce
Existence of such delegated power is 143 usual feature of the statutes
No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in it
Any challenge therefore round ed on excessive delegation of legislative power was miscon ceived
144H 145A B 12 The definition of the word agricultural produce in the Act includes all produce whether agricultural horticul tural animal husbandry or otherwise as specified in the Schedule
The legislative power to add or include and define a word even artificially apart the definition which is not exhaustive but inclusive neither excludes any item produced in mill or factories nor it confines its width to produce from soil
Nor switch over from indigenous method of produc ing anything to scientific or mechanical method changes its character
To say therefore that sugar being produced in mill or factories could not be deemed to be agricultural produce is both against the statutory language and judicial interpretation of similar provisions of the Act in statutes of other States
145C D F Kewal Krishan Puri vs State of Punjab   Ramesh Chandra vs State of UP  Rathi Khandsari Udyog vs State of UP  Sreenivisa General Traders vs State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 1264 Ramesh Chandra vs UP State and State of UP vs Ganga Das Mill  re ferred to
Halsbury s Law of England Vol
I and Paragraph 1845 re ferred to 2
In view of the settled position of law that sugar legislations are within the scope of Entry 33 of Concurrent List no further discussion on clash between Entry 52 of List I of Vllth Schedule and Entry 28 of List II is neces sary
There is no repugnancy in the Central and State legis lation
Even if there would have been any the Act having received assent of the President is fully protected by Article 2542 of the Constitution
146B D Choudhary Tika Ram and Others vs State of UP   followed