N Criminal Appeal No 468 of 1983
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd February 1983 of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule HC No 483
MM Abdul Khader and SK Nandy for the Appellants
VM Tarkunde and Mrs Manik Karanjawala with him for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
The detaining authority under section 3 2 read with section 3 3 of the  Act  for short being the District Magistrate of Nowgong and the State of Assam assail the decision of the High Court at Gauhati quashing the order of detention
On October 20 1982 the District Magistrate made the following order Whereas I am satisfied from the dossier submitted by Superintendent of Police Nowgong that it is necessary to prevent Shri Sarat Mudoi so Shri Renu Mudoi village Senchows PS Nowgong from acting in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community I section Kablian IAS District Magistrate Nowgong hereby in exercise of powers conferred under section 3 2 read with section 3 3 of  direct that Shri Sarat Mudoi be detained with immediate effect until further orders
In the grounds of detention which were supplied to the detenu within the time provided by law six grounds were specified
Before the High Court several contentions were raised including the one to the effect that if the detaining authority does not specify in the order of detention as to which particular supply andor service he had in mind while making it the order of detention is vitiated
After hearing counsel for the parties the High Court came to the conclusion 959 We are of the view that as while passing the order of detention the authority has to specify the particular prejudicial activity whose prevention he has in mind so also he must specify the particular supply and service which according to him is being prejudicially affected by the activities of the detenu
The notified categories of supplies and services thus really get as if implanted in the and an order of detention on this score must have reference to one or more specified supplies and services forming part of notified categories
Any other view would also pose a possibility of abuse of power as a result of absence of full application of mind and set aside the order of detention
At the stage of notice on the special leave petition this Court on March 10 1983 made the following order Issue notice to the respondent returnable within a week confined to the question as to whether according to the ratio laid down by this Court in AK Roy vs Union of India   it is necessary to specify in the order of detention itself the particular supplies and services essential to the community which are affected by the activities of the detenu or will it suffice if it is mentioned in the grounds for detention
On behalf of the State this Court was told that even if the appeal was allowed the respondent would not be detained for the unexpired portion of the period
The short question that survives for consideration therefore is whether without the particulars of supplies and services specified in the order of detention it is bad
In AK Roy s case and the connected matters this Court took the view that no person could be detained under section 3 2 of the with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community unless by a law or notification made or published fairly in advance the supplies and services the maintenance of which is regarded as essential to the community and in respect of which the order of detention is proposed to be passed are made known properly to the public
Accordingly 960 by a notification on February 8198216 specified supplies and services were notified as essential to the community and this notification was duly published in the Gazette of India Extra ordinary issue of the same day
Under the the detenu is entitled to make a representation against the order of detention
It is manifest from the statutory scheme that his right to represent is after the grounds are served on the detenu
It is the pronounced view of this Court that such right should be without fetters and as wide as possible
Since the citizen is detained without trial and on the basis of satisfaction of a notified authority the right to represent assumes importance
The detenu would be in a position to effectively represent only when specific particulars are provided to him and the grounds are intended to provide that material to him
Mr Tarkunde who appeared amicus curiae fairly agreed that it is not necessary that the specification should be in the order of detention and it would be adequate to enable the detenu to make an effective representation if the particulars are provided in the grounds of detention
We are inclined to take the view that a full disclosure made in the grounds in no way prejudices the right guaranteed to the detenu to make an effective representation challenging his detention
Therefore non specification of the required particulars in the order of detention would not vitiate the order as long as the particulars are provided in the grounds in support of the order of detention which in quick succession of the detention order are served on the detenu
Counsel for the appellants argued that while it would be possible for the particulars to be provided with reference to past conduct it would be difficult to specify any of the 16 items of services and supplies included in the notification in regard to future conduct of the detenu and therefore to require the detaining authority to so specify would be asking for the performance of something impossible
In view of the limited question on which notice was issued this aspect strictly does not fall for consideration
We also do not find any merit in this stand
It was pointed out by this Court in Debu Mahto vs State of West Bengal1 that the basis for an order of preventive detention is the reasonable prognosis of the future behaviour of the person based upon his past conduct
It is open to the detaining authority to take note of the past conduct of a detenu and apprehending repetition of 961 such conduct in future an order of detention can be made with a view to preventing such action
If past conduct confined to any or all of the 16 of the items in the notification could be satisfied the detaining authority could also on the basis of reasonable apprehension of repetition of such conduct in future make an order of detention for its prevention
We do not propose to say anything more in view of the short question to which the notice was confined
We are thankful to Mr Tarkude for assisting us at the hearing as amicus curiae
This disposes of the appeal
HSK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent challenged the order of his detention under the National Security Act on the ground that since the detaining authority did not specify in the order of detention as to which particular supplies and services he had in mind while making it the order of detention was vitiated
The High Court set aside the order of detention
In appeal it was submitted that it would be impossible for the detaining authority to specify any of the 16 items of services and supplies included in the notification in regard to the future conduct of the detenu
Allowing the appeal  HELD Under the Act the detenu is entitled to make a representation against the order of detention
It is manifest from the statutory scheme that his right to represent is after the grounds are served on the detenu
The right of the detenu to make a representation should be without fetters and as wide as possible
Since the citizen is detained without trial and on the basis of satisfaction of a notified authority the right to represent assumes importance
The detenu would be in a position to effectively represent only when specific particulars are provided to him and the grounds are intended to provide that material to him
A full disclosure made in the grounds of detention in no way prejudices the right guaranteed to the detenu to make an effective representation challenging his detention
Therefore non specification of the required particulars in the order of detention would not vitiate the order as long as the particulars are provided in the grounds in support of the order of detention which in quick succession of the detention order are served on the detenu
960 B E It is open to the detaining authority to take note of the past conduct of a detenu
If past conduct confined to any or all of the 16 items in the notification could be satisfied the detaining authority could also on the basis of reasonable apprehension of repetition of such conduct in future make an order of detention for its prevention
960 H 961 A Debu Mahto vs State of West Bengal AIR 1974 SC 816 referred to 958