J 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 1981 Bom CR 885 Vidula Vchambersin 20230826 172558 1 42

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, August 26, 2023

Printed For: Vardharma Chambers .
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 : 1981 Bom CR 885
Bombay High Court

(BEFORE D.M. REGE AND D.N. MEHTA, JJ.)
Vinita Dattatraya Samant … Petitioner;

Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and others … Respondents.
Special Criminal Application No. 1062 of 1981
Decided on July 27, 1981 and July 28, 1981
Page: 888
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PER REGE, J.:— This petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution is by the wife of a detenu Dr. D. Samant detained under the National
Security Act, 1980.
2. On 24th June 1981, the detenu while on his way to Shivji Park for addressing a
rally was arrested, taken to the C.I.D. Office and there served with a detention order
dated 23-6-1981 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Thane. No grounds of
detention and the material on which they were based were served on the detenu then.
According to the first respondent's affidavit in reply letter dated 25-6-1981 by the
detenu's advocate Shri Dhun Canteenwalla asking for the grounds and material was
not replied to as it was not accompanied with an authority from the detenu to that
effect. It seems after the service of the detention order the detenu was removed to
Akola District Prison, Akola, about 400 miles away from Bombay.
Page: 889
3. On 25-6-1981 respondent No. 1 made a report to the Stats Government under

section 3(4) of the Notional Security Act. According to respondent No. 1, however, on
28th June 1981, the Police Officer was deputed to Akola District Prison where the
detenu was obtained to serve on the detenu the grounds and the material relied upon
at the said prison. When the said papers were sought to be served on the detenu on
28-6-1981, the detenu by his latter of the said date to the Commissioner of Police,
Thane District had pointed out that on 24-6-1981 when a detention order was served
on him he had requested to hand over further correspondence to his wife and that he
had no connection with his family members till then but inspite of that the police from
Thane had brought copy of the grounds of detention. He, therefore, by the said latter
requested the authorities to hand over all the correspondence to his wife at his
Bombay address. Thereafter on the said authority from the detenu a wireless messags
was conveyed to Bombay and accordingly the grounds of detention along with the
relevant papers ware served on the detenu's wife at the detenu's Bombay address on
30th June 1981 along with a covering letter of the same date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. On 25-6-1981 the Detaining Authority-respondent No. 1 made a report to the

State Government-respondent No. 2 under section 3(4) of the National Security Act.
On 3rd July 1981 the State Government approved the said order of detention by the
Detaining Authority as inquired under section 3(4) of the said National Security Act.
5. In the mean time on 2-7-1931 the detenu's wife filed this petition. On 3rd July
1981, on the day on which the petition was presented to this Court, representation
was addressed on behalf of the detenu to respondent No. 2 with copies there of to
respondent Nos. 1 and 4. Along with this representation, a copy of the petition was
also sent to be treated as representation. On 3rd July 1981, this Court admitted the
petition after hearing the parties. It seems that on 4th July 1981, at about 4.35 p.m. a
letter was addressed by the Government Pleader to the petitioner's advocate
forwarding there with legible copies of certain documents already forwarded along with
the grounds, as at the time of hearing of the admission of the petition a grievance was
made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that many of the photo state copies
supplied to the petitioner along with the grounds of detention were illegible and some
totally blank.
6. According to the Detaining Authority he had also despatched on 30-6-1981 by
registered post a set of documents i.e. grounds and material to the detenu at Akola
District Prison. However, on enquiry on 3-7-1381 it was found that the said registered
packet had not reached the detenu till then. (That packet was received by the detenu
on 10-7-1981). So on the same day Police Officer was sent to Akola with a fresh sat of
grounds of detention along with the material wherein illegible or blank photo-copies
Page: 890
were replaced by legible one and copies of some mom documents were tendered to
the detenu, he refused to accept the same and requested the same to be handed over
to his wife at Bombay.
7. On 7-7-1981, respondent No. 1 who was expected to consider the representation

made on behalf of the detenu rejected the same and intimated about it to the detenu's
advocate by a letter dated 9-7-1981. On 9-7-1981, the Chief Minister of Maharashtra
also rejected the detenu's representation of which the detenu's advocate was
intimated by a letter dated 10-7-1981.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us mainly four grounds in
support of his contention that the order of detention was invalid. They are:
(1) That the National Security Act was violative of the fundamental rights given to a
citizen under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
(2) Further, according to him, the detention order was invalid as many of the
grounds wars either non-existent or irrelevant or lacked application of mind of
the Detaining Authority inasmuch as the activities enumerated had either no
nexus to the detenu or to the object viz. prejudice to the maintenance of public
order, or were vague.
(3) The Chief Minister of Maharashtra State i.e. respondent No. 2 had violated the
Constitutional and statutory right of the detenu under Art. 22(5) of the
Constitution of India by making statement prior to the date on which the
petitioner made a representation to the Government that the detenu would not
be released from detention. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner
said statement affected grievously the right to have his representation
considered and making the said right sham.
(4) Lastly, he contended that most of the documents which were supplied to the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wife of the detenu wore illegible and some were completely blank making it
impossible for the detenu to exercise his right of making an effective
representation.
9. As regards the 1st contention, challenging the validity of the Act, learned
Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he did not wish to challenge in this petition
the vires of the Act as the said question is already pending determination by the
Supreme Court.
10. The 2nd consideration was as regards the various grounds being either non-
existent or irrelevant inasmuch as the activities concerned had no nexus with either
the detenu or the object viz. activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order, or being vague.
11. Under section 3 of the National Security Act under which the present detention
order was made, the question as regards a pedicular activity of the detenu being
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was solely within the subjective
satisfication of the Detaining Authority. However, it is not that under no circumstances
the courts can probe into the said
Page: 891
subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority. The extant to which the Court can
do so is well laid down by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of 1 (Khudiram
v. State of West Bengal), (1975) 2 SCC 81 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. p. 550.
“But that does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority
is wholly immune from judicial reviewability. The courts have by judicial decision
carved out an area, limited though it be, within which the validity of the subjective
satisfaction can yet be subjected to judicial security. The basic postulates on which
the courts has proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition
precedent for the exercise of the power conferred on the executive the Court can
always examine whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority as
required under the statute.”
12. The Court further pointed out the instances where the courts can so interfere
such as where there is non-application of mind in making the order or where the
purpose for making the order was improper or where the satisfaction was not of the
Detaining Authority himself but was of soma one else, or where the satisfaction was
based on wrong tests or misconstruction of a Statute or where the satisfaction was
granted ‘on materials which are not of rationally probative value, i.e. the grounds on
which the satisfaction was based must be such as a rational human being can consider
connected with the fact in respect of which the satisfaction was to be reached and
must be relevant to the subject matter of the enquiry and must not be extraneous to
the scope and purpose of the statute’. One mara ground on which the subjective
satisfaction could be challenged as the Court pointed out which was lately becoming
important was that ‘the grounds on which the authority had reached its subjective
satisfaction are such that any reasonable parson could possibly arrive at such
satisfaction.’ The Court, there cited with approval the observations of Lord Green M.R.
in an English decision to the effect ‘the authority has come to a conclusion so
unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it, then the Court
can interfere.’
13. In the light of the position in law, as stated above, as regards the Court's power
of reviewability of the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, the said
contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to the validity of the detention
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
order in reference to each of the grounds be considered.

14. Before, however, dealing with the grounds of detention in detail in that
connection one minor contention of the learned Advocate General be dispensed with.
15. In this case as is apparent from the grounds of detention furnished to the
detenu, the same relate to in all 18 industrial units/companies comprising in all 70
acts. The scheme of the grounds shows that the activities
Page: 892
are grouped according to the respective companies in which they are alleged to have
taken place. The learned Advocate General has contended that the different activities
grouped under different companies are merely instances and cannot be termed as
grounds so that if one of such instances were not sustainable it cannot be said that
one of the grounds being bad, the order of detention was vitiated. The said contention
of the learned Advocate General cannot be accepted. As I will presently point out, each
of the said activity though grouped under different companies, which the learned
Advocate General called instances, was in fact a ground by itself and grouped in that
manner only for sake of convenience.
16. The meaning of the expression ‘ground’ as distinguished from the conclusion of
the Detaining Authority was also considered by the Supreme Court in the aforecited
decision in Khudiram's case ((1975) 2 SCC 81 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550). There the
Court at page 554 held:
“……. It is obvious that the ‘grounds’ mean all the basic facts and material which
have been taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of
detention and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based.”
17. The Court also quoted with approval observations of Sarkaria J. in its earlier
unreported decision in the case of 2 (Golam Mullic v. State of west Bengal) to the
effect:
“……In the context ‘grounds’ does not merely mean a recital or reproduction of a
ground of satisfaction of the authority in the language of section 3 of the Act nor is
its connotation restricted to a bare statement of conclusions of facts. It means
something more. That something is factual constituent of the ‘grounds’ on which
the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based. The basic facts and material
particulars, therefore, which are the foundation of the order of detention will also be
covered by grounds.”
18. In this case the scheme of the grounds of detention furnished to the detenu
shows that what may be termed as a conclusion of the Detaining Authority on the
facts, in terms of section 3 of the Act was to be found not only at the end of all the
grounds of detention but also at the end of every groups of activities enumerated
against a company.
19. The conclusion of the Detaining Authority at the end of all the grounds was:
“From the above narration of events that have followed, your entry into 18
industrial units in the limits of the Thane Commiserate it is abundantly clear that
there is definite pattern in your tactics that disturb public order…”
20. To a similar effect if not in the same terms are the conclusions to be found at
the end of groups of activities enumerated against almost each of the 18
companies/industrial units. If the said activities were not to be
Page: 893
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
considered as ground as suggested by the learned Advocate General than bereft of the
said activities what would remain in the grounds of detention would be only the
conclusions, which as pointed out in the abovequoted observation of the Supreme
Court cannot be considered to be the basic facts and material which have to be taken
into account while making the detention order. In my view, therefore, in this case each
of the various activities enumerated in the grounds of detention under different
companies which the learned Advocate General referred to as instances, constituted a
ground of detention, though grouped under different companies in that manner only
for the sake of convenience.
21. It may now be convenient to proceed to deal with the said contention of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner as to the grounds being irrelevant or showing
absence of application of mind of being such, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in
Khudiram's case, as no reasonable man could possibly arrive at such a conclusion, or
being vague.
22. The said contention has been argued in two parts, firstly, it is contented that
most of the grounds disclose no nexus between the detenu and the activities alleged
and the object there by being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
23. Before examining each of the grounds set out in the grounds of detention in
that light, I would like to preface such examination with a few general remarks:—
24. The detenu in this case happens to be a President of two large Labour Unions
viz. Association of Engineering Workers and Maharashtra General Kamagar Union
having large membership and operating not only in Bombay and Thane but also
outside those areas. Although the grounds of detention in its conclusion at the end, in
connection with the detenu's activities speak about the detenu following a pattern of
pressure tactics for recognition of his union, such pressure tactics for recognition of his
union or dislodging the union, it can have no relevance in connection with Ground 8-
regarding Ashok Sunil and Co. Where the company had recognised the detenu's union.
Ground 16-regarding K.R. Steel Co. which relates to the holding of gate meeting and
Ground 17-regarding Bayer and Co. which deals with only an incident of threatening
the wife of an officer of Bayer and Company. Further, in none of the cases, an overt act
on the part of the detenu has been alleged. However, six of the grounds viz. Ground 1:
— re: Wellman Co., Ground 3:— re. Tecksons and Co., Ground 6:—re. New Shakti Dye
Works Ltd., Ground 9:—re, Fouress Engineering, Ground 10:—re. Duphar Interform
Ltd. and Ground 16:— re. K.R. Steels, speeches made by the detenu at the gate
meetings at respective company have been referred to while in two other grounds viz.
Ground 5:—re. Ashok Sunil and Co. and Ground 7—re. Ferrodie Ltd., letters written by
the union to the management have been referred to. But excepting in the said cases of
4 companies, in none
Page: 894
other case there is even an allegation that any of the activities referred to therein
which are of the workers of the company were at the instigation of the detenu.
However, the allegation of instigation in five Grounds is only in the following manner:
—
In Ground (1)(i) relating to Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. alleging violent and
criminal activity by the workers, expression used is ‘on your instructions’ or ‘with
your active support’.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ground (3)(iv) re:—Tekcons Pvt. Ltd. alleging threat to loyal workers by the
detenu's followers the expression used is ‘obviously with your covert
encouragement’.
In Ground (4)(i) re:— Uni Deritant Precisions Castings alleging the followers of the
union damaging company's property, the expresion used is ‘obviously on your
instigations’.
In Ground (9)(i) re:—Fouress Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. alleging that the
associate of the detenu one Arvind B. Wenl making a speech at your i.e. detenu's
instigation and
In Ground (16) re:— K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd. dealing with the activity of workers, uses
the expression ‘obvious advice so openly given.’
25. As I deal with each of the grounds hereafter, I will deal with the propriety and
the basis for the use of the said expressions.
26. However, it is clear from the grounds that in almost all cases, the connection of
the detenu to the activities is sought to be established by referring to them as the
activities of workers under different expressions such as ‘workers of your union’ or
‘workers owing allegiance to you and your union’, or your followers or ‘your close
associates’ or ‘your trusted lieutenants’, or ‘the activists of your union.’
27. While examining each grounds, therefore, it will have to be found out on the
allegation made in the ground itself read with the documents on which the same is
based (in this the document being referred to as exhibit along with each activity),
whether in each any reasonable man could possibly connect the activity in question to
the detenu.
28. With these preliminaries, I will now proceed to consider each ground in that
connection. The first set of activities relate to Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd.
Ground (1)(i):—It speaks of the activity of the union about the workers adopting
‘Go Slow’ policy after a speech by the detenu on 4-4-1980 at the gate meeting. It
was conceded by the learned Advocate General that the said activity was legitimate.
Therefore, even if it were considered to be an activity of the detenu the same has
no nexus to the object i.e. prejudice to maintenance of public order.
Page: 895
Ground (1)(ii):—This refers to assault by unidentified workers suspected to be of

the detenu's union on one Misra threatening him not to go to work. According to the
ground itself the case was classified as true but undetected. Ex. 3, the Case papers
on which the ground was based refers to the assailants as only the workers of the
company and it does not make reference either to the union of detenu or the
assailants being the members of his union therefore, on the basis of the said Exhibit
‘3’ on the basis of which the ground is formulated, there was no material for the
Detaining Authority to infer that the assailants were suspected to be of the detenu's
union much less there was any material before him to infer that the assault was
with the active support of the detenu. Even if it were true, as contended by the
learned Advocate General that the detenu had claimed that all workers of the
company belonged to his union and factually the workers belonging to his union
were on strike still in my view since it was so alleged by the assailant in his
complaint, Ex. 3, no reasonable inference could be drawn that the assault was by
the workers belonging to the detanus union muchless that the assault was made
with the active support of the detenu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground (1)(iii):—This refers to the issuing by the company a notice dated 17th May
1980, declaring lock out on any day after 1-6-1980. This obviously has not and
cannot have any connection with the activity of the detenu, but only relates to the
activity of the company. Nor can it have any nexus with the object of maintenance
of public order.
Ground (1)(iv):—This deals with the incident of 13th June 1980, alleging Gherao,
thereat and assault on one Brijmohan Ramulu Khanna, Production Officer of the
Company by workers alleged to be owing allegiance to the detenu and his union
while on duty in the factory. Firstly, it may be pointed out that Ex. 5 being case
papers of C.R. No. 198/80 on which the ground is based does not speak of any
assault and also the name of one of the workers alleged to have committed assault
mentioned in the grounds as David was really ‘Devendra’. That apart, in this case
also there is no allegation that the said activities were dona at the instance of the
detenu.
Ground (1)(v):—This incident speaks of certain unidentified persons assaulting one
Shantaram Indersingh Parista, Security Supervisor of the Company While on duty
and theatening him not to work. The incident is sought to be connected with the
detenu by alleging that ‘this obviously appears to be the work of your followers’.
Case papers, Ex. 6, on which the said ground is based does not make reference to
the detenu's union nor do they even allege that the
Page: 896
workers who were unidentified were the members of the detenu's union or were his
followers. It merely refers to the persons concerned as workers of the company on the
third shift. On the material available, therefore, there was no reason to infer that the
persons giving threat and/or assaulting were the followers of the detenu or their act
was at the Instance of the detenu.
Ground (1)(vi):—This stands on the same footing as above. It alleges that certain
workers owning allegiance to the detenu obstructing the Production Officer and
family and going to his quarters. Exhibit ‘8’ on which the ground is based does
make no reference to the workers indulging in the said activity being workers owing
allegiance to the detenu.
Ground (1)(vii):—This incident of 16th August 1980 speaks about the Production
Officer being stabbed by sneaking assailants near the factory while he was going to
the factory and states that the case was registered but as the assailant could not be
identified, the same was closed as true but undetected. Neither the ground nor the
case papers, Ex. 9 on which the ground was based speaks about the assailants
being members of the detenu's union nor do they speak about the act being done
at the instigation of the detenu. It is, therefore, difficult to see how this ground
even on reasonable inference be connected with the detenu.
Grounds (1)(viii) and (ix) relates to incidents of 2nd September 1980 and 24th
September 1980, alleging about the workers giving slogans and defying prohibitory
orders issued by the District Magistrate and workers owing allegiance to the detenu
and his union threatening a loyal workers to prevent him from attending work.
There is no allegation in this case also that the said acts were at instigation of the
detenu, nor there was any material to reasonably infer that they were the acts of
the detenu.
Grounds (1)(xi) to (xv) specifically speaks about the incidents due to the instigation
given by inflamatory speech of the trusted lieutenant of the detenu one Mr. Borade
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whose speech has been referred to in Ground 1(x). Ground (1)(x) also refers to a
speech by the detenu at the gate meeting on 12-1-1981 and states that the detenu
had addressed the meeting for a few members and left. The police report of the
detenu's speech (Ex. 14) shows. The speech was innocuous only telling the workers
that Shri Borade whose speech was to follow would tell them About the meeting to
be held two days thereafter. At the time the speech was delivered by Shri Borade
the detenu was not present. Neither the report of the speeches (Ex. 14) nor does
the ground indicate that the speech of Borade even if inflamatory was made at the
instigation of the detneu. In the
Page: 897
said ground the Detaining Authority has drawn an express inference that the activities
referred to in items (xiv) to (xv) of the workers were due to the inflamatory speech of
Borade who is referred to as the detenu's trusted lieutenant. It, therefore, appears
that even the Detaining Authority has not sought to draw an inference that either the
said activities were due to the speech or instigation of the detenu or that the speech
by Borade or there at the meeting was instigated by the detenu. Apart from that in the
case papers of the said activities viz. Exs. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 on which the said
grounds are based do not make arty reference to the union of the detenu or as to the
workers belonging to his union. At the end of the said activities item (xvii) alleged that
‘from the above incidents in Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd., it is quits clear that you
have encouraged violence which has alarmed not only the loyal workers, the
management staff and other workers and management in the area of Kolshet Road,
but also the law abiding public on the public road and those using public transport,
thus posing a threat to public order.’ However, as I have pointed out above, there was
nothing in above mentioned activities to held even by inference that the said activities
were those of detenu and, therefore, the circular cannot stand.
Ground (2)(i):—It relates to some unidentified persons on 6-2-1980 stoning the

company's bus taking loyal workers to the station. Although the ground alleges that
it was the work of workers owing allegiance to the detenu's union, the ground by
itself states that the case was undetected. However, the case of the complainant
Ex. 23, on which the ground was based does not alleged positively that the stones
were thrown by union workers, but only alleges by way of a guess that the stones
might have been thrown due to unions' dispute
when the Detaining Authority did not know who the persons who threw stones were
and when the complaint (Ex. 23) also does not allege any such thing it was difficult
to see how the Detaining Authority could draw any inference that the persons
throwing stones, were workers of the union or that it was the activity of the detenu.
Ground (2)(iii) and (iii)::—They relate to stopping of a company's tempo carrying
food on 25-11-1980 alleged to be by workers owing allegiance to the detenu and
his union and throwing out food. However, complaints Ex. 24 and 25 do not make
reference to the detenu's union or the accused as belonging to his union. It only
refers to the accused ac workers of the company. Nor does the said ground contain
any allegation that the said activities have been done at the instance of the detenu.
Page: 898
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground (2)(iv):—It alleges that on 8-1-1981 one Ramanarayan Sarojee alleged to

be a follower of the detenu's union was found with a Rampuri knife by Head
Constable M.S. Patil of Wagle Estate Polite Station for which he was charge sheeted
under section 37(1) read with section 135, Bombay Police Act. The ground is based
on the case papers Ex. 26. A look at the said papers would show that they do not
describe the said Ramnarayan Sarojee as a follower of the detenu's union. They do
not even refer to the said-Sarojee as a worker of any company. Under the
circumstances a reference by the Detaining Authority in the ground to the said
Sarojee in the ground as the follower of the detenu's union appears to be the flight
of his imagination. It was pointed out by the learned Advocate General that at that
time the police had promulgated in the area an order under section 144 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and that the person was found with the Knife near the
gate of the company. However, even if that were so, still, on the case papers Ex.
26, there could not be even a remote reference that the accused was the follower of
the detenu and/or that the said activities was the activity of the detenu.
The rest of the activities in ground (2) stand on the same footing as others with no
allegation of the acts being instigated by the detenu. However, the said activity of
workers was their individual activity when the workers of the company were on
strike. In Ground (2)(vi), there is a reference to the driver being pulled out of the
car. There is no reference to the same in case papers Ex. 28 on which the ground
was based.
Ground (3):—In this ground all the activities referred to stand on the same footing
as those mentioned above. However, a particular reference be made to item (iii)
thereof. The ground alleges that on 26th May 1981, the Security Officer being
stopped and threatened with dire consequences if went to work and that in that
connection, one Najekar of the detenu's union being arrested. However, the said
ground was not borne out by the case papers Ex. 37, on which the ground is sought
to be based, Ex. 37 speaks about an incident where an employee of Central Stores
was alleged to have been stopped when returning with the wife of the Security
Officer and was threatened. The said ground apart from being irrelevant was also
false end could not have any connection with the activity of the detenu.
Ground (4):—In this case the incidents relating to Uni-Deritand Precision Castings,
which may be referred to are items (i) while the others stand on the same footing
as above.
Ground (4)(i):—It related to the incident dated 18th March 1981 and 24th March
1981 alleging that the followers of the detenu's union squatting inside the factory
obviously on detenu's instigations
Page: 899
damaged some expensive moulds worth Rs. 9,200/- for which two cases were
registered at Kapur-bawadi. F.I.R. Exhibit 40 on which the said incident is based
shows that the complaint was against workers of the company whose names were not
known. It does not make any reference to the detenu's union or that the workers
causing damage ware the members of the said union. Further while Exhibit 40 speaks
about the damage being to the extent of Rs. 18,000/-. Exhibit 40A speaks about the
damage being only Rs. 1,200. However, there was nothing in the complaint to show
that the damage was caused by the followers of detenu's union or that it was done at
the detenu's instructions as alleged in the ground.
Ground (4)(ii):—This incident alleges the workers on strike and the followers of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
detenu having threatened to cause harm to the family of the manager of the
canteen for which a case was registered on 24th April 1981 against one Sudhakar
Pawer one of the detenu's followers and 3 others of the detenu's union. The relevant
copies of N.C. on which the ground was based is at Ex. 45. In the said complaint, it
is only alleged that the complainant had taken for conducting a canteen of the
company and because of that the accused had threatened the complainant that if
he went to the company they would cause a harm to his children
In the complaint, the accused are mentioned only by their surnames
including one Pawar and there is no reference to any Sudhakar Pawar as mentioned
in the ground. Nor does the said complaint refers to the detenu's union nor to the
accused even as the worker of the company, muchless, as the followers of the
detenu or the members of his union. So also neither the said complainant nor the
ground alleged that the threat as being given at the instance of the detenu. Further
more, although the complaint referred only to a threat of causing a harm to
children, the ground interprets it has “threat to murder the wife of the canteen
manager.” Thus the said inference by the Detaining Authority was without any
material whatsoever.
Ground (5):—Relates to a company called Voltas Limited.
Ground 5(i):—It relates to an incident of 18th March 1981 where it is alleged that
one V.J. Naik of the detenu's union had abused and assaulted the canteen manager
and the Security Officer who intervened for which complaint was lodged being N.C.
complaint Ex. 48 is the material on which the said ground was based. However, the
said N.C. complaint gives altogether a different picture of the incident. Firstly
although the ground alleges abuses and assault the complaint only speaks about
arguments and pushing Further, the complaint discloses that the
actual incident was that
Page: 900
when the canteen manager had gone to check the canteen, he had seen the accused
workers taking ⅔ tomatoes and, therefore, the canteen manager had asked him to take
the tomatoes after seeing the persons sitting there viz. the Security Officer, where
upon some arguments had taken place between the accused and the complainant
when the complainant had asked from the accused the canteen pass. Accused had
threatened the complainant that he would drive the complainant out of the company.
Apart from the fact that the said episode being flimsy and there being no allegation
about the same having taken place at the instance of the detenu. One fails to
understand how the said incident can by any stretch of imagination be considered to
be an activity of the detenu.
Ground (5)(ii):—This incident first alleges about speech by the detenu at the gate
meeting held on 13-4-1981 wherein the detenu asked for one union in the factory
and not two. This activity of the detenu has no relevance to the activity concerned
under the National Security Act. Then the ground does not allege anything having
happened as a result of the said speech. The second part of the said ground alleges
displaying certain playcards by the followers of the detenu against one of the
officers of the T.C. Department of the company and also against the Deputy
Superintendent of the Assembly Department. The said playcards do not from part of
the material supplied to the detenu. It is, however, nowhere alleged in the ground
that the same was done at the instance of instigation of the detenu, so as to be an
activity of the detenu.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground (5)(iii) and (iv):—These incidents dated 25th May 1981 allege abuses and
threats by the followers of the detenu to the incharge of the department when he
had gone to inspect the same. Although the ground refers to the accused as
detenu's follower's actually N.C. complaints extracts (Exs. 50 and 51) on which the
ground is based, refers to them as the workers of the union viz. Association of
Engineering Workers. However, neither the ground nor the extracts of the N.C.
complaints allege the said incident which appears to have taken place at the spur of
the moment as having been done at the instigation of the detenu go as to infer that
they were the activities of the detenu.
Ground (6):—Regarding New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.
Ground (6)(i):—It refers to a speech by the detenu wherein the detenu is alleged to
have told the workers that they did not get justice from going to the courts and
hence they should strike work or abuse the management after entering their cabins.
Et also speaks about 60 workers going on strike on 5-4-1980. Actually the report of
the speech (Ex. 53) on which the said ground is based shows that the detenu had
shown his regards for the workers not
Page: 901
having strength to enter the cabins of the management and abuse them if justice was
not done to them. But that apart there is no allegation of any unlawful activity of the
nature coming under the National Security Act as a result of the said speech and,
therefore, the said activity though of the detanu has no relevance.
Ground (6)(ii):— Refers only to the speech of one Mungekar alleged to be main
lieutenant of the detenu. There is no allegation that the detenu was present at the
meeting or that it was made at his instigation. The said act of Mungekar, therefore,
cannot be connected to the detenu.
Ground (7):—Regarding a company Ferredle Ltd. It refers to 2 instances, one dated
13-4-1981 obstructing a company's lorry with goods going out of the company by
the detenu's followers and the 2nd obstructing and threatening Security Officer on
contract by workers of the detenu's union. Case papers Ex. 56 and 58 on which the
said grounds are based raters to the accused as workers of the company and makes
no reference to the union of the detenu. Apart from that none of the grounds allege
the acts being done at the Instigation of the detenu. These grounds, therefore, fall
in the same category as many of the grounds mentioned above.
However, on these two grounds and the go slow tactics adopted by the workers of
the company, the Detaining Authority has concluded: “The above facts clearly show
that you do not brook any opposition from management to your illegal demand and
you even demanded cancellation of agreement entered into with the management
recognised union without any respect for the labour laws and industrial relations. If
annoyed by legal stands taken by the management, you resort to intimidatory
tactics which disturb public order.” To say the least, the ground does not even spark
about the cancellation of the agreement with the management recognised union.
That apart, on the incidents mentioned in the ground the said conclusion appears to
be in founded.
Ground (8):—Regarding Ashok Sunil & Co. In this case admittedly the detenu's
union has been recognised by the company and, therefore, no question of the
detenu following a pattern of pressure tactics to have his union recognised or
dislodging the rival union would arise atleast in this company.
Ground (8)(i):—The only incident in this company that is alleged is about the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
workers alleged to be the followers of the detenu intimidating the management by

resorting to ‘Gherao’ on 6-5-1981. Here again as in other coses the workers of the
company on sit-in strike and no either to the union or to the accused being
members of the union so also neither the ground nor the complaint Ex. 63 alleges
that the same was at the instigation of the detenue???
Page: 902
Ground (9) Regarding Fouress Engineering (India) Private Ltd.

Ground (9)(i):—Alleges about the detenu having organised a public meeting at the
gate of company on 19-12-1980 which was alleged to be soon after he having
formed union in February 1980 where at the instigation of the detenu one Wani is
alleged to have made a provocative speech and used abusive language against the
police and the management for which complaint was made. The case papers (Ex.
66) on which the said ground is based, however, do not support the said allegation.
Firstly, admittedly, at the said meeting the detenu was not present. Secondily, the
said meeting was not an ordinary union meeting but it was a condolence meeting
held by the workers of the union to mourn the death of the union worker one
Pedvelkar, who the workers alleged to have been killed by one Sadanand Shetty.
Further, the complaint speaks about the speakers-having strongly criticised
the police end the management for their inaction in the matter and
having made fiery speech and demanded the arrest of the said Shetty and if not
threatened to close down the companies in the area. The complainant does not
Spear about the speakers having used abuses against the police and management.
There is no basis in the complaint to allege that it was done at the detenu's
instigation as alleged in the ground.
Ground (9)(ii):—This speaks about seven workers of the detenu's union uttering on
20-1-1981 filthy and abusive slogans against the management as set out therein.
The case papers of the incident Ex. 67, on which the said ground was based tell a
different story. The said papers show that at that time over 580 workers were
shouting for their demands out of which 5 or 7 workers are supposed to have
uttered the said slogans. It further appears that when a complaint (Ex. 67) was
made to the police on 20th January 1981, the persons named in the complaint as
uttering said slogans were five in number. However, in the charge-sheet for the
same the said number appears to have risen to eleven. On the ground as
formulated and the complaint on which it is based there is nothing to show that the
said workers were shouting the said slogans at the instigation of the detenu so as to
connect the said activity with the detenu.
Ground (9)(iii):—It alleges that on 24-11-1980 one Ghagat belonging to detenu's
union had given fist blows to one Kale a worker belonging to another union.
However, N.C. complaint extracts Ex. 68 on which the said ground is based refers to
both the complainant and the accused as the worker of the company and makes no
reference to the either of them belonging to any union. It only speaks about giving
fist blows by one to the other after arguments.
Page: 903
The incident as narrated in complaint Ex. 68 appears to have occurred at the spur of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the moment in heat of arguments. Apart from the fact that there is no allegation as to
the same being at the instigation of the detenu it is difficult to see even otherwise how
such an act could be connected to the detenu as his act.
Ground (9)(iv):— In this ground it is alleged that one Patil of detenu's union had
intimidated one Nayakar who had refused to become a member of the union and
was beaten up with lists. N.C. extract Ex. 69 on which the ground is based does not
speak of any refusal to become the member of the union, it only says that accused
of the detenu's union gave fist blows to the complainant of the other union Mazdoor
Congress because of the argument in union matter. This act between the members
of the rival unions had taken place in the course of the arguments and cannot be
connected by any stretch with the detenu.
Ground (9)(v):—In this ground it is alleged that on 24-11-1980, one Shri Ramesh
B. Kulkarni and Shri R.D. Gaikar belonging to the detenus union had intimidated
one Shri T.T. Gupta and beat him with fists for which an offence was registered.
Firstly, the N.C. extract (Ex. 70) on which the said ground is based shows that said
incident had occurred on 28-10-1980 and not on 24-10-1980, as alleged in the
ground. Secondly, the person concerned was one Ramesh B. Kurve and not
Kulakarni as stated in the ground. Further, according to the said extract what
appears to have actually alleged was that both the accused and the complainant
were works is in the company, that the accused wanted to break the Mazdoor
Congress of which the complainant was a member, that the accused had asked the
complainant to give in writing that he was not a member of the Mazdoor Congress
and as the Complainant refused, the accused setting angry had given first blows to
the complainant. The said ground based on the complaint Ex. 70 does not bring out
the incident clearly. This incident as others in respect of the company appears to
have happened in a fit of anger on the spur of the moment. Apart from the fact that
there was no allegation about the same acts being done at the instigation of the
detenu, even otherwise the said acts cannot be held out as the activities of the
detenu. At the end of the said ground, a conclusion is sought to be drawn that the
detenu has actively started his organisation and become a potential threat to the
maintenance of public order by resorting to strong arm tactics for gaining
recognition to detenu's union. From none of these instances an inference was
possible to be drawn leading to the said conclusion.
Instances in ground (10) regarding Duphar intorfran Ltd. alleging that workers of
the company belonging to the detenu's union had obstructed and threatened
company's officers from going in
Page: 904
bereft of any allegation of instigation by the detenu for doing the said acts stand on
the same footing as various other similar acts in other companies referred to above.
Ground (11) Regarding United Wire Rope Co.

Ground (11)(i):—In this ground it is alleged that on 24th December 1980 at 4.20
p.m. one Madhukar S. Bondare belonging to the detenu's union had assaulted one
V.N. Matkar with a saw blade for which an offence was registered. The incident as
stated gives an impression that the Incident had something to do with the detenu's
union actively and the person assaulted belonged to another union. However, the
relevant case papers at Ex. 76 firstly, show that the name of the assailant was
Madhukar Kondade and not Madhukar Bondare as mentioned in the ground. The
case papers further expressly stats that both Madhukar Kondade and V.N. Matkar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the victims in fact belonged to the same union as that of the daunt. They also show
that the said Kondade had assaulted the said Matkar while under influence of liquor.
The said incident even by any stretch could not be considered to be an activity of
detenu.
Ground (11)(ii):—This also stands on the same footing as the above incident. Here
the allegation is as regards some workers threatening and assualting another
worker. As the case papers Ex. 77 on which the ground is based show the said
incident also is between the workers who were the members of the same union and
the reason for it was a quarrel over one member working over time. This again has
nothing to do with the activity of the detenu.
Ground (11)(iii):—This ground alleges an incident dated 23-12-1980 whereat Shri
Khade, Shri Kawlekar (really ought to be Kudalker), Shri Patkar and Shri Surve are
alleged to have stopped the car of the accountant who was coming out from the
factory pulled him out and assaulted him. Complaint Ex. 78 on which the ground is
based, refers to the said workers having hit the said accountant on the head while
in the car but does not speak about being pulled out from the car and assaulted as
alleged in the ground. This incident so also incident (iv) does not even refer to the
assailant as the workers of the detenu's union. Apart from this ground as well as
ground (11)(iv) bereft of any allegation of instigation by the detenu stand on the
same footing as various other similar grounds referred to above.
The three incidents which relates to stopping company's vehicle pelting stones and
giving threat at a gate meeting in Ground (12) regarding Golden Dye. Corporation
being Ground 12(i)(ii) and (iii) although alleging that the workers involved were
detenu's followers or belonged to his union, do not allege that they were at the
instigation of the detenu.
Page: 905
Ground (12)(iv):—This ground relates to an incident of 9th May 1981 where it is

alleged that one Naronha of Francis Kleins Pvt. Ltd. who wanted to see the
management of the company was obstructed by the detenu's man while entering
the factory and after he had coma out he was assaulted and robbed of his brief case
which was ultimately burnt. The case was, however, classified as true but
undetected. If it is not known even to the Detaining Authority as to who the
persons concerned were and if the complaint only refers the persons as workers, it
is difficult to see how the Detaining Authority could infer that it was the activity of
the detenu's men and hance of the detenu.
Ground (13) Re:—Surendra Industries Pvt. Ltd.
In the beginning of the said ground, it is alleged that at the gate meeting organised
on 7-4-1980 by the detenu's followers for seeking recognition to his union, detenu's
followers Shri Bihari, Shri Yadav, Shri Bagul and Shri Ratan had assaulted a loyal
worker Shri Jadhav, a Security Officer with fist blows. However, the N.C. complaint
extract Ex. 80 on which the ground was based showed that the incident was not at
the meeting and had nothing to do with the object of the meeting. From the said
Ex. 89, it appears that various outside workers were invited to attend the said
meeting. It was then alleged by some workers of the union that one of the galas
leading to the place of the meeting was closed which was denied by the said Jadhav
and to show that the gate was open the said Jadhav had taken the said workers in
his car to the gate and showed that the gate was not closed. It was at that time
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
away from the place of the meeting some altercation had taken place where at the
said workers are alleged to have assaulted the said Jadhav. As the said N.C.
complaint extract (Ex. 85) shows that the assault was on the heat of the moment
and had even nothing to do with the object of the meeting as such as it is sought to
be brought out in the grounds. It is also not alleged that the incident was at the
instigation of the detenu. The said incident, therefore, can have no connection with
the detenu.
Ground (13)(i):—It alleges a holding of an unlawful assembly on 8-5-1980 by
workers belonging to detenu's union with a view to assault certain temporary
workers for which a complaint was lodged being C.R. No. 112/80. However, case
papers (Ex. 90) on which the ground is based do not make any reference to any
such allegation. They show that the police had gone to the scene on getting
information that some of the dismissed workers of the company had collected at the
gate of the company with sticks, iron bars etc. and that on seeing the police had
runaway. The
Page: 906
papers do not oven refer to any purpose of the meeting as stated in the ground, which
appears to be imagination of the Detaining Authority. In this case also there is no
allegation as to the same being done at the instigation of the detenu so that the same
may amount to his activity.
Ground (13)(ii):—Alleges an assault by some workers belonging to the detenu's

union on an associate of one Namdeo Laxman Solaskar a loyal worker on 20-5-
1980. It is based on case papers Ex. 91. From the said case papers, it is clear that
quarrels ensued because of the workers of the detenu's union having asked other
workers of the company belonging to Shiv Sena as to why he had joined Shiv Sena
union as a result of which the workers of the detenu's union were alleged to have
assaulted the other worker. Here again as in various other cases there is no
allegation of the act having been done at the instigation of the detenu. The quarrel
appears to be between individual workers of the company belonging to different
unions and the same cannot be held out as an activity of the detenu.
At the end of this ground No. (13) also, there is a conclusion drawn viz. as a result
of these intimidatory and violent activities organised and guided by you, the
management had to suspend work in the factory which resumed its production in
December 1980. Basis on which this conclusion appears to have been drawn in Ex.
93. However, the said Ex. 93 has nothing to do with the violent or intimidatory
activities supposed to have been organised or guided by the detenu. It is a notice
issued by the Personal Manager, one Gadkari for Surendra Industries dated 27th
June 1980 informing the workers as regards resumption of the companies' activities
as a result of several meetings with the detenu as the President of the Association
of Engineering Workers and it asked the workers to start cleaning factory premises
and the place of their work till the actual operation started. It is difficult to see how
from the said document an inference ever be drawn that the company had to
suspend work as a result of any intimidatory or violent activities organised or
guided by the detenu.
Ground (14):—Regarding W.G. Forge and Allied Industries.
It initially deals with certain speeches made by two workers R.J. Singh and R.N.
Singh who are alleged to have threatened one Laud, the Operational Manager of the
company that his leg would be cut off if he become strict in declaring lock out. It
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
also speaks about lock out being declared by the company on 20-6-1980. Neither
the ground nor the complaint Ex. 94 on which the said ground is based alleged the
said speeches being made at the instigation of the detenu. Nor
Page: 907
does the ground or the complaint Ex. 94 speak about the said speeches being in any
way connected with the detenu, so as to the said speech being held as the activity of
the detenu.
Ground (14)(i) & (ii):—Speak about incidents of 21 St October 1980 and 10th July
1980 where in the first case some workers belonging to the detenu's union are
alleged to have obstructed the Security Officer from leaving the factory premises,
while in the other, workers belonging to detenu's union after holding a gate
meeting are alleged to have taken out a procession to the residence of Operational
Manager Laud. The report of the gate meeting Ex. 97 shows that both gate meeting
and the procession were peaceful. Here again as in the other cases, there is no
allegation as to instigation from the detenu for the said activities. That apart, in
item (ii) there was no incident at all but on the contrary, the moating and the
procession were peaceful. It is, therefore, difficult to see how these activities even
by inference can be said to be the activities of the detenu.
Ground (14)(iii):—This incident relating to assault with fist blows and a chair on the
Personal Manager of the company bereft of arty allegation of instigation by the
detenu stand on the same footing, as the other similar instances mentioned above.
Ground (15):—Regarding Chemi Quip Ltd.
Ground (15)(i):—The first incident relates to the gate meeting held by one
Mangekar, alleged to be the detenu's lieutenant, on 17-12-1980 and soon
thereafter on 7th January 1981 one worker of the Mazdoor Congress of Dina Bama
Patil is alleged to have been assaulted by three workers alleged to be followers of
the detenu's union, with a tiffin box. The extract of the complaint Ex. 100 on which
the ground is based gives a different picture. What appears to have happened was,
that the workers of the company belonging to the detenu's union were demanding
money from the other workers for the benefit of workers employed outside the
company. Accordingly, they had demanded money from the workers who were the
members of the other union who said that they would think about it after asking
their loaders outside. The complaint states that because of that the said workers of
the detenu's union had got angry and assaulted the others with tiffin boxes and
fists. This incident of assault also appears to have taken place between the workers
in the heat of anger and can by no stretch be attributed to the detenu as his
activity, nor there is as in the other cases any allegation of instigation by the
detenu.
Ground (15(ii):—Under this incident it is alleged that on 8-1-1981 i.e. a day next
after the first incident, one Ramakant Digambarnath Chuge was beaten with first by
Ramesh ???
Page: 908
alleged to be followers of detenu's union in order to force him to join detenu's union.
N.C. complaint extract on which the ground is based is Ex. 101 and 101-A. The
complaint states only that the detenu wanted to have his union in the company while
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there was an union of Dina Bama Patil of which he was a general leader and on that
ground the said assault had taken place. The complaint does not speak about the
assault was made in order to force the complainant to joint the union as made out in
the ground. Otherwise also the said incident stands on the same footing as the other
similar instances of assault dealt with above.
Ground (15)(iii):—This relates to an incident of 24th March 1981 when a loyal

worker of the company is alleged to have been assaulted and stabbed by one
Ramesh Balu Kadam and 8 others all followers of the detenu's union. The ground
itself does not set out the reasons for incidents. However, the reason for the
assualt, as given in case papers Ex. 102, on which the ground was based, was that
the assault had taken piece as a result of the argument between them about the
complainant and his followed workers not having attended a meeting, of the
detenu's union held on 24-3-1981. Ground does not bring out the said reason for
the assault. Otherwise til so the said incident stands on the same footing as the
other various instances mentioned above where there was no allegation of
instigation by the detenu.
Ground (16):—Regarding K.R. Steel Pvt. Ltd.
The ground initially speaks about a speech by the detenu at the gate meeting held
really on 27-4-1981, wrongly stated in the ground as 24-3-1981. No over act is
alleged as a result of the said speech. It is further alleged that ‘following your
obvious advice so open, given on 12-5-1981 the workers of the company deflated
the tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager, entered the office of Personal
Manager and manhandled him.’ However, there is no complaint lodged by any one
in respect of the said allegation on which the said ground could have been based.
Ex. 105 on which the said ground based is a report by the police about the police
arrangements at the company and about the decision to start the company after
talks between the management and the detenu. This ground has nothing to do with
the detenu's activity.
Ground (17):—Here the allegation was about the detenu's followers terrorising
women folks to bring pressure on their husbands not to go to work. The ground
alleges an incident of 8th June 1981 where 1/15 workers of Bayer India Company
controlled by detenu's union, had gone to the residence of one Bausker,
Administrative Manager of Bayer India Ltd. at Dombivali in his absence and met his
wife and threatened her that they would murder Shri Bauskar
Page: 909
and dispose of his body in such a way that she would not be able to set her eyes on it,
which had a terirrible effect on her. In this case, the persons who held out the said
threat ware not identified. F.I.R. Ex. 106 as regards the said incident shows that Mrs.
Bauskar had expressed her willingness to identify them if shown. Even today the said
persons ore not identified. Since the said persons were not identified, it could not be
said that they were members of the detenu's union, or that the said act was done at
the instance of the detenu.
Ground (18):—Re National Rayon Corporation, it relates to clash between the

workers of two rival unions viz. of the detenu and of one Dhulap and there was
stone throwing which had caused panic. The F.I.R. Ex. 107 on which the ground is
based does not show who were at fault. The F.I.R. does not state who the arrested
persons were. The said act, therefore, cannot be connected with the detenu.
29. I have tried to deal with almost all the acts covered under 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
companies/industrial units, just to show how very many of the said grounds can not
even by remote inference be connected to the detenu.
30. I have gone through the various grounds of detention some what in detail to
show how in very many cases the Detaining Authority has failed to apply his mind to
the question whether the activities enumerated therein could be considered to be the
activities of the detenu. Reading the said grounds, as a whole, it gives an impression
that what the Detaining Authority has done was to collect, as if mechanically various
acts of assaults, intimidation etc. that had occurred during a particular period in
proximity to the detention order, in various companies in the area, in which either the
detenu as a labour leader was seeking to establish his union or where the workers or
workers of the detenu's union were involved as accused under the complaints filed and
after alleging that the said acts were the acts of the members of the detenu's union or
his followers or his lieutenants or of those owing allegiance to him and his union
incorporate the same as grounds of detention, on the basis that they were the
activities of the detenu without even alleging in most cases that they wore at the
instigation of the detenu or careing to examine whether they or any of them with a
reasonable inference could be said to have any nexus with the detenu.
31. As I have pointed out at the out set, the detenu was a labour leader being the
President of two large unions having large membership with their activities not only in
Bombay, but at several places outside such as Thane, Belapur, Pune and Aurangabad.
Therefore, it would be a dangerous proposition to hold that any act done by a worker
who was a member of detenu's union at any time, at any place and under any
circumstances, was to be the act of detenu. Even to draw a reasonable inference to
that effect atleast there must be some material of rationally probative value before the
Page: 910
authority to do so and not a mere fact that the workers responsible for the some were
the detenu's followers of the members of the detenu's union or owing allegiance to
him or to his union.
32. I have pointed out above while discussing each and every ground that apart
from various other things, some of the acts alleged are so frivolous that even by
remote inference, they cannot be connected with the detenu. Acts, such as notice of
lock-out by a company [ground (1)(iii), a man being found with a Rampuri knife near
the gate of the company; ground (2)(iv), or a quarrel over tomatoes; ground (5)(i),
quarrels between the members of the same union; ground (11)(i) and (ii) or cases in
which oven according to the Detaining Authority the assailants were undetected;
ground (1)(ii), (v) & (vi) ground (2)(i) and ground (17) or a case where the incident
had taken place on the spur of the moment in the heat of arguments or anger; ground
(9)(v); ground (13)(i) or (13)(i), (15)(i) and (ii) or (16)].
33. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that various
grounds in the grounds of detention have no nexus to the object of the detention viz.
the maintenance of the public order.
34. In nature of the expression ‘public order’ as distinguished from law and order
has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various decisions. A few of such
decisions may be referred to. First one is in the case of 3 (Ram Manohar Lohia v. The
State of Bihar), 1966 A.I.R. S.C. 740. There the Court at page 768 laid down:
“The contravention of law always affects order, but: before it can be said to disturb
public order it must affect community or public at large. A mere disturbance of law
and order leading to disorder is thus not necessarily sufficient for action under the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defence of India Act but disturbance which subert the public order are”.
(Underlining supplied)
35. Hidayatullah, J. who propounded a theory of concentric circles observed at page
758 of the report:
“One has to imagine three concentric circles. Law and order represents the largest
circle within which is the next circle representing public order and the smallest
circle represents the security of the State. It is than easy to see that an act may
affect law and older tut not public order just as an act may affect public order but
not security, of the State.”
36. In a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case 4 (Arun Ghosh v. The
State of West Bengal), (1970) 1 SCC 98 : A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228 Hidayatullah, C.J.,
who delivered the judgment of the Court, again reiterated three concentric circles
formula stated above. In that case the Court was concerned with the question whether
an incident between the two individuals could be considered to be prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The Court there at page 1230 of the report observed:—
Page: 911
“It means, therefore, that the question whether a man has only committed a breach
of law and order or has acted in a manner likely to cause a disturbance of the public
order is a question of degree and the extent of the reach of the act upon the
society. The French distinguish law and order and public order by designating the
latter as under publlique. The latter expression has been recognised as meaning
somethings more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. Justice Ramaswamy
in 5 (Writ Petition No. 179 of 1968 (SC)) drew a line of demarcation between the
serious and aggravated forms of breaches of public order which affect the
community or endanger the public interest at large from minor breaches of peace
which do not affect the public at large. He drew an analogy between the public and
the private crimes. The analogy is useful but not to be pushed too far. A large
number of acts directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of
public order. In Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia's Case 1966 S.C.R. 709 : A.I.R. 1966 S.C.
740 examples were given by Sarkar and Hidayatullah, JJ. They show how similar
acts in different context affect differently law and order on the one hand and public
order on the other. It is always a question of degree of the harm and its affect upon
the community. The question to ask is: does it lead to disturbance of current of life
of the community so as to amount to disturbance of the public order or does it
affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? This
question has to be faced in every case on facts. There is no formula by which one
case can be distinguished from another.
37. The next decision that may be conveniently referred to is in the case of 6 (Ram
Ranjan Chaterjee v. The State of West Bengal), (1975) 4 SCC 143 : A.I.R. 1976 S.C.
609. There the Court held:
“It may be remembered that qualitively, the acts which affect law and order are not
different from the acts which affect public order. Indeed a state of peace or orderly
tranquility which prevails as a result of the observance or enforcement of internal
laws and regulations by the Government is a feature common to the concepts of law
and public order.
The distinction between the area of law and order and public order is one of degree
and extent of the reach of act in question to the society. It is the potentiality of the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the contravention in its effort is
confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide
spectrum of the public, it would raise a problem of law and order only. These
concentric concepts of law and order and public order may have a common
epicentre, but it is the
Page: 912
length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption
of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affect in public order from that
concerning law and order.”
38. To the same effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in its decision in
the case of Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 4 SCC 143 : A.I.R.
1975 S.C. 609.
39. On these basis of the aforesaid decision, it would now be convenient to consider
whether grounds referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner could be
considered such as to prejudice to the maintenance of public order.
40. As I have pointed out earlier in my judgment the Detaining Authority has set
out his conclusions as to the acts enumerated in the grounds of detention being such
as to affect maintenance of public order, not only at the end of all the grounds, but
also at the end of instances pertaining to each company. I have also pointed out that
every instance which constituted facts and material would be a ground to be
considered as such. While giving instances as regards such company in almost alt
cases the instances start by Stating about detenu's taking steps to have his union
recognised by asking the workers to adopt go slow policy and/or resorting to strike by
giving a notice. The Detaining Authority in his affidavit in reply has stated that the
said reference to go slow policy or resorting to strike were not the basis of the order of
detention but were referred to incidentally to show that the prejudicial acts were either
proceeded or followed by the activities of the detenu's union.
41. On the reading of the grounds of detention, the reference to go slow policy of
resorting to strike at the beginning of the enumeration of activities in connection with
each company does not appear to be only incidental to the order or not the basts of
the order of detention as contended in the affidavit. The said activity or adoption of go
slow or resorting to strike appears to have been referred to amongst others as part of
the so called pattern of pressurising tactics alleged to have been adopted by the
detenu for recognition of the union or dislodging the rival union as stated in the
conclusion at the end of the ground of detention. In my view, therefore, the allegation
as to the adoption of go slow policy or resorting to stride are as such a part of the
grounds as the other instances.
42. As regards the said grounds of go stow policy or resorting to strike, the learned
Advocate General has fairly stated that those were the legitimate activities of the
union. In that case the said grounds given at the beginning of the activities relating to
every company excepting in grounds (8), (16) and (17) can have no nexus to the
object of the detention order.
43. Apart from that, certain other grounds referred to by the learned Counsel for
the petitioner in that connection be considered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 913
Ground (1)(iii):—It relates to a notice dated 17-8-1980 issued by the Wellman

(Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. notifying their intention to declare a lock out of their company
from any day after 1-6-1980. Admittedly, this was not an activity of the company.
It is also difficult to see what this ground can have to do with public order.
Ground (1)(viii):— This ground and/or the incident covered by this ground relates
to slogan shouting by the workers of the company at the gate of the factory of
Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. after defying the prohibitory orders issued by the
District Magistrate.
Ground (2)(iv):—This incident rotates to one Ramnarayan Sarojee being found
carrying a Rampuri knif near the gate of the company being Rubber Products Ltd. It
is stated that at that time the police had promulgated order under Rule 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ground (5)(i):—As stated above, the ground read with Ex. 48 on which it is based
shows that the incident relates to sortie alteraction between the worker and the
canteen supervisor in connection with the taking of tomatoes. Although the ground
alleges abuses and assaults, the complaint on which it is based speaks only about
arguments. The said incident can have no connection with the maintenance of
public order.
Ground (5)(ii) and (iii):—They relate to abuse and threat by worker to one of the
officers and exhibiting of playcards which are not given to the detenu nor produced.
Ground (6)(i):—It relates to Speech alleged to have been delivered by the detenu
on 4th April 1980, staling that the workers did not get justice from the courts and
that they were not strong to abuse the management by entering their cabins.
Ground (7)(i):—This incident deals with obstructing of a lorry carrying finished
goods by the followers of the detenu and threatening the driver of the said lorry.
Ground (8)(i):—It relates to intimidation by the workers of the management of the
company by gheraoing them.
Ground (9):—It relates to a speech delivered on 19-12-81 by persons other than
the detenu at a condolence meeting held to mourn the death of a worker who was a
member of the detenu's union. The report of the speech Ex. 66 speaks about the
police and management being criticised for not taking steps against the culprit one
Sadanand Shetty. Apart from the fact that the detenu was not present, no incident
as a result of the speech is alleged.
Page: 914
Ground (9)(ii):—It relates to 7 out of 500 workers who were shouting for their
demands using abusive slogans, as is evidence from the case papers (Exs. 67 and
67-A).
Ground (10)(i), (ii) and (iii):—Incidents relate only to the obstruction by some
workers on street of the Personal Manager or Quality Control Manager or the Labour
Officer for going into the premises. No violent incident is alleged.
Ground (11)(i) and (ii):—These incidents relate to the dispute between some
workers belonging to the same union i.e. the detenu's union.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground (13) (first part) and (ii) and ground 15(ii):—They relate to the incident
between workers that appear to have taken place in the heat of arguments or
anger.
Ground (16):— The only incident alleged is deflation of tyres of the car of the
Commercial Manager by workers of the company who were on strike without any
one having explained about it.
44. None of the above quoted grounds can have any relevance to the object of
maintenance of public order.
45. There are various decisions of the Supreme Court which go to show that even if
one of the grounds or reason that led to the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was
irrelevant the order of detention was invalid.
See 7( Pushkar Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal), (1969) 1 SCC 10.
8 (Sushanhta Goswami v. The State of West Bengal), (1969) 1 SCC 273 : A.I.R.
1969 S.C. 1004.

9 (Ram Raul v. State of West Bengal), (1972) 1 SCC 570 : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 863.
10 (Bhupal Chandra v. Asif Alitors), (1974) 1 SCC 253 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 255.
11 (Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of M.P.), (1981) 2 SCC 456 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C.
870.
46. However, the learned Advocate General has contended that if the activities
enumerated in the grounds constituted a chain of activities of the detenu, the totality
of which would lead to an apprehension of the same being prejudicial to public order,
then in that case even if one ground was bad, on that count the detention order should
not be held to be invalid or vitiated.
47. In support of the said proposition, the learned Advocate General has relied
upon certain decisions of the Supreme Court and an unreported decision of the
Division Bench of this Court which may be first referred to.
48. The argument is based on certain observations of Hidaytullah, J. in his
judgment in the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of W.B., (1970) 1 SCC 98 : A.I.R. 1970,
S.C. 1228 (which I have referred to above) where the Court held that acts complained
of were restricted against the ladies of a particular family and affected Individuals and
not the society at large and therefore, cannot be said to be
Page: 915
prejudicial to public order. In that case, after dealing with the nature of public order as
distinguished from law and order Hidayatullah, C.J., while dealing only with the
analogy in that connection drawn by Ramaswamy, J. in the Court's earlier decision as
being public crime and private crime, had observed:—
“The said analogy was useful but not to be pushed too far, if large number of acts
directed against persons or individuals may total up into a breach of public order.”
49. It may be mentioned that the said observations on which reliance is placed by
the learned Advocate General in support of his proposition were only in connection
with the analogy drawn by Ramaswamy, J., to distinguish public order from law and
order and cannot be taken to negative the proposition laid down in other decision that
on irrelevant ground would vitiate the order of detention.
50. The next decision of the Supreme Court relied upon was in the case of 12 (Dr.
Ramkrishna Rawal v. District Magistrate Jabalpur), (1975) 4 SCC 164 : A.I.R. 1975
S.C. 90. There in the grounds of detention a chain of events on which an earlier
detention order was passed but later on revoked was narrated as a background. It was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contended that grounds (2), (3), (4) and (5) being the same, on the basis of which
the earlier detention order was passed, the subsequent detention order was illegal,
what the Court held was that those grounds were stated merely as a narration and
were not the grounds on which the fresh detention order was passed. It was then
urged that para 10 of the schedule to the grounds referring only to the organisation of
hunger strike was an innocuous act and therefore, irrelevant. There the Court found
that the said ground was to be read as a whole and as pail of series of incidents
enumerated in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 which were relevant to the object i.e.
maintenance of public order and therefore, it was irrelevant. Here again the ground in
para 10, which was by itself innocuous was interpreted to have the potentiality of
disturbing public order in the light of other grounds which were of that nature. In that
case also, each ground was examined to find out whether it had any nexus with the
object. The said decision also cannot be said to negative the proposition laid down by
the Supreme Court that one irrelevant ground vitiated the whole order.
51. The other decision was in the case of 13 (Madhav Roy v. State of Bengal), (1974)
4 SCC 548 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 255. In this case the ground was a solitary instance of
theft of copper return feeder wire of railway tracks, but while passing the order, the
Magistrate had taken into consideration also the fact that the detenu was one of the
antisocial elements and that he was indulging in committing theft of copper return
feeder wire from railway tracks. The only contention which was negatived was that the
District Magistrate in making the order had relied upon grounds which wore not
communicated to the detenu. In that case the Court upheld the detention order on the
basis that the ground on which the
Page: 916
detention order was passed had by itself a nexus to the object of the detention order.
In that case the question whether on one ground being irrelevant the order was
vitiated, did not arise for consideration.
52. The next decision was in the case of Ram Ranjan Chatterjee v. State of West of
Bengal, (1975) 4 SCC 143 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 609. In that case also the Court after
examining the grounds in terms held that each of the three grounds viz. exploding
bombs in a thickly populated area, exertion of grocery at pain of instant death from a
grocer of the locality which made his customers free from the shop and reckless
hurling of bombs at the villagers had nexus with disturbances of the public order in
the locality.
53. In that case also, each ground was considered to be by itself having potentiality
of disturbing public order. No question as to whether on one ground being relevant the
order was vitiated arose for consideration of the Court.
54. The unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in 14 (Chandrakant
Shankar Kapade v. M.G. Mugwe, Commissioner of Police, Bombay), Criminal
Application No. 393 of 1975 (Vimadalal and Shah, JJ.), delivered on 3-7-1975,
reported is 1975 U.C.R. (Bom.) 101, on which reliance has been placed, also shows
that although the Court has relied upon the aforecited observations of Hidayatullah,
C.J., in Arun Ghosh's case the Court had considered each ground to see whether
although it was between individual, had a potentiality of having a nexus to the object.
The Court in terms considered the nature of each act in relation to its odd things,
weapons used and the area covered. In doing so, the Court did find that grounds
mentioned constituted a chain, but that was only in connection with the contention
that each act constituted only an act between individuals affecting only law and order.
The Court there on looking into the totality of the similar activities alleged in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ground held that each ground had a potentiality of having a nexus with the object. In
that case, the Court did not hold that any of the grounds was irrelveant or having no
nexus to the object nor did the question arose for the Courts consideration whether
one irrelevant ground would vitiate the order.
55. In my view, therefore, none of the said decisions negatived the proposition laid
down by the Supreme Court in the aforecited decisions that one irrelevant ground
would vitiate the whole order.
56. However, even if the said proposition of the learned Advocate General were to
be accepted, the same has no application in this case.
57. The contention of the State is that in this case the various grounds or activities
of assault, intimidation, etc. relating to 18 companies where the detenu was seeking
to dislodge the recognised union, constituted a chain of activities of the detenu which
has been termed at the end of the grounds as ‘a pattern of tactics’ to pressurize the
management. However, the learned Public Prosecutor conceded that even if the said
alleged pattern were not to exist in case of even one of such companies the
proposition cannot stand.
Page: 917
58. In my view, in the following grounds there was no question as to the detenu
having adopted the alleged pattern of tactics.
Ground (2):—Re. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd.
No question of seeking to dislodge the recognised union. Only allegation is that
the detenu was asked to head the existing union.
Ground (3):—Teksons Pvt. Ltd.
No allegation of dislodging the recognised union.
Ground (8):—Ashok Sunil and Company.
In this case the detenu's union was already recognised by the company. There
was no question of the detenu seeking to dislodge the recognised union. No
question of pattern of tactics alleged would arise in this case.
Ground (11) Re. United Wire Rope:—
No allegation of either of establishing a rival union or dislodging the recognised
union.
Ground (17):—This ground has nothing to do with the alleged pattern of tactics as
there is no allegation that it was in connection with the detenu seeking to dislodge
the recognised union or establishing a rival union.
59. In that case the question of considering all the activities mentioned in the
grounds of detention in their totality as a chain in connection with the question of the
disturbances of public order would not arise.
60. The next ground of challenge to the validity of the detention order was that
some of the grounds were vague. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the
ambit of expression ‘vagus’ in its decision in the case of 15 (State of Bombay v.
Atmaram Shridhar Vaidya), A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157. There the Supreme Court as regards
the expression ‘vague’ observed as under:—
“The contention that the grounds are vague requires soma clarification. What is
meant by vague? Vague can be considered os the anotooym of ‘definite’. If the
ground which is supplied is incapable of being understood or defined with sufficient
certainity it can be called vague. It is not possible to state affirmatively more on the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
question of what is vague. It must vary according to the circumstances of each

case. It is, however, improper to contend that a ground is necessarily vague if the
only answer of the detained person can be to deny it. That is a matter of detail
which has to be examined in the light of the circumstances of each case, if, on
reading the ground furnished it is capable of being intelligently understood to
enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention
it cannot be called vague. The only
Page: 918
argument which could be urged is that the language used in specifying the ground is
so general that it does not permit the detained person to legitimately meet the charge
against him because the only answer which he can make is to say that he did not act,
as generally suggested. In certain cases that argument may support the contention
that having regard to the general language used in the ground he has not been given
the earliest opportunity to make a representation against the order of detention. It
cannot be disputed that the representation mentioned in the second part of Art. 22(5)
must be one which on being considered may given relief to the detained person.”
61. In that case the Court also observed at page 163 of the report that:—
“On the other hand, the question whether the vagueness or indefinite nature of the
statement furnished to the detained person is such as to give him a earliest
opportunity to make a representation to the authority is a matter with the
jurisdiction of the Court's enquiry and subject to the Court's decision.
62. The connotation of the expression ‘vague’ was again reiterated by the Supreme
Court in its decision in the case of Naresh Chandra Gangule for 16 (Shri Ram Prasad v.
The State of West Bengal), (1969) 1 SCC 873 : 1969 A.I.R. S.C. 1335.
63. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in this case the
following 7 grounds were vague. They are:—
Ground (1)(ii):—Re. Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. This relates to certain
unidentified persons/workers supposed to be members of the union of the detenu
having assaulted one Shri Siddhanath Baburao Misra. It states that the case was
classified as true but undetected on 30th June 1960.
Ground 1(v):—It also deals with all incidents of 13th June 1980 regarding certain
unidentified persons assaulting one Shantaram Indersingh Farista, Security
Supervisor, Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. while he was on duty and silages that
this work appears to be the work of followers of the detenu.
Ground 2(i):—Re. Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd.
This relates to an incident of 6th August 1980 pertaining to alleged stoning of bus
and gheraoing of the loyal workers. Although inspire of the fact that the persons
concerned are stated to be unidentified, the ground alleges them to be owing
allegiance to the union of the detenu. In fact the Case papers Ex. 23 on which the
ground is based does not bear out the said allegation. It only speaks about a
possibility that the stone throwing might have taken place due to union activity.
Page: 919
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground 4(i):—Re. Uni-Deritand Precision Castings.

It relates to the incidents of 18th March 1981 and 24th March 1981 alleging that
some workers alleged to be the followers of detenu's union were found squatting
inside the factory and obviously in persuance of the instructions issued by the
detenu they had damaged same expansive mould worth Rs. 9,200/-. In this case
also the persons who are alleged to have Caused damage are not identified and
referred to in the F.I.R. Ex. 40 as only workers of the company.
Ground 4(ii):—This relates to an incident of 5th April 1981 alleging that the workers
affiliated to the old recognised union (CITU) gave assurances in writing and started
working while those from the detenu's union gathered outside the factory gate and
shouted slogans in abusive language against the management and the loyal
workers.
Ground 17:—Relates to the Incident of certain workers having gone to the residence
of one Bauskar Administrative Manager of Bayer India Ltd. at Dombivali in his
absence and threatened his wife about murdering hor husband. According to the
ground the workers were unidentified. Although in her complaint the lady had
shown her willingness to identify the persons they have till this day remained
unidentified.
64. In respect of all the above instances, it is clear that neither any over act on the
part of the detenu nor even his presence is alleged in the ground either directly or
impliedly. The complaints or case papers on which the said incidents are based refer to
the parsons concerned in the incidents only as workers of the company and they have
as expressly mentioned in the grounds remained unidentified even to the Detaining
Authority. The allegation by the Detaining Authority as they being either supposed to
be members of the detenu's union or followers of the detenu or owing allegiance to his
union or his followers are purely out of imagination and do not prevent the ground
being vague.
65. Under the circumstances in my view, on the ground as stated, they were
incapable of being intelligently understood or could be said to be sufficiently
understood or could be said to be sufficiently definite to furnish materials to enable
the detenu to make representation against the order. As pointed out above, in this
case neither any over act on the part of the detenu nor his presence either expressed
or implied being alleged and the activity being held out to be his only in the
imagination that the persons concerned were his followers or members of the union
etc. although the complaints did not so, the said grounds would not enable the detenu
to make an effective representation so that on being considered it may give him relief.
Page: 920
66. As against this, the learned Advocate General has firstly contended that merely
because certain particulars of the persons concerned were not mentioned in the
grounds, they did not become vague.
67. In support of the said contention, he has sought torely on certain decisions of
the Supreme Court.
68. The first is in the case of 17 (Naresh Chandra v. State of West Bengal), A.I.R.
1959 S.C. 1335.
69. In that case the ground was that petitioner intended to proceed to Delhi on 9-
10-1958 with a view to instigate plans against personal security of the Prime Minister.
The ground was alleged to be vague. The Court pointing out that the vagueness was a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
relative term and its meaning must vary according to the facts and circumstances of
each case, held that in that particular case the place, date and purpose of the planned
nefarious activity wets stated and the ground was not vague.
70. The other decision was in the case of 18 (S.K. Hasan Ali v. State of West Bengal),
(1972) 2 SCC 677 : A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2590. In that case the grounds stated amongst
other things that the detenu with his associates was concerned in the incident. It was
contended that since the associates' names were not mentioned, the ground was
vague. The Court negatived the said contention as it found that the date, time and
place of the incidents were already stated in the ground apprising him of the precise
activity on which order of detention was made.
71. The third decision is in the case of 19 (Milan Bank v. State of West Bengal),
(1974) 4 SCC 504 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1214. The grounds mentioned that the detenu
and his associates had committed robbery. It was contended that not mentioning the
names of the associates made the ground vague. The Court negatived the said
contention on the same basis as in the aforecited case of Hasan Ali as it found that the
time and place of the incident as well as its particulars were properly given.
72. Relying on the said decision, it was contended by the learned Advocate General
that in this case also when the grounds gave time, place and the nature of the incident
that cannot be termed vague merely because the names of the persons were not
given.
73. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the aforecited decision, the question of
vagueness depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
74. The said decision cannot apply to the facts of this case. In all the above cases,
the grounds alleged an over act on the part of the detenu himself with others. In those
cases in the grounds the detenu was alleged to be directly involved in the Incidents
while setting out the time, place and particulars, so that the detenu being in the know
of the incident merely not knowing the names of his associates would not have
prevented him from making an effective representation so that the ground could be
considered
Page: 921
as vague. However, that is not the case here. There is no direct involvement of the
detenu alleged in this case nor even his presence at the time of incident has been
alleged. On the contrary, without any material to that effect, the acts of the workers of
the companies are sought to be held out against him only on the ground that were his
followers, or members of his union, etc. Therefore, under the circumstances of this
case, non-disclosure of the persons enumerated in the incident made the grounds
vague.
75. The further contention of the learned Advocate General relying on Art. 22(5) of
the Constitution, was that if the grounds lacked particulars, the detenu had under Art.
22(5) of the Constitution a fight to ask for the same and if asked, the same would
hove been supplied to him and since the detenu had not exercised that right he
cannot be heard to complaint that the grounds were vague.
76. Firstly, it is difficult to see if asked for by the detenu, what particulars would
hove been supplied by the Detaining Authority when even to the Detaining Authority
as well as the complainants persons responsible for the acts have remained
unidentified.
77. That apart, the very same, contention came to be negatived by the Supreme
Court in its decision in the case of 20 (Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. The District Magistrate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamrup), (1974) 1 SCC 103 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 183. In that case the ground of
detention was that the detenu was milling rice illegally and then smuggling the same
out side the State. The Court there found that the particulars as regards the
smuggling not having been given, the ground was vague and therefore, the detention
order could not stand. While dealing with the said contention, the same as raised by
the learned Advocate General here, viz. that had the particulars been asked for by the
detenu, the same would have been furnished to him, the Court at page 198 of the
report observed:
“Nor are we satisfied that the fact that the petitioners could have asked for further
particulars but that they did not do so, would be enough to salvage the orders of
detention. The right to call for particulars has been recognised in Atma Ram Sridhar
Vaidya's case 1951 S.C.R. 167 : A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157 as flowing from the
constitutional right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representation.
This Court said in 21 (Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza's) case, 1956 S.C.R. 382 :
A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 531, that if the grounds are not sufficient to enable the detenu to
make a representation, the detenu, if he likes, may ask for particulars which would
enable him to make the representation and the fact that he had made no such
application for particulars is a circumstance which may well be taken into
consideration, in deciding whether the grounds can be considered to be vague.
If a ground communicated to the detenu is vague the fact that the detenu could
have but did not ask for further particulars is immaterial. That
Page: 922
would be relevant only for considering the question whether the ground is vague or
not.
I have stated above that in my view, the aforestated grounds of detention were
vague and would not have enabled the detenu to make an effective representation.
If that were so, then as laid down in the aforecited decisions of the Supreme Court
in Prabhu Dayal's case, the question whether the detenu could have asked for the
particular or not and if asked the Detaining Authority would have supplied the
same, would be irrelevant and would not prevent the order being held to be invalid.
The said contentions of the learned Advocate General, therefore, cannot be
accepted.
78. By discussing the various grounds above, I have found out that many of the
activities mentioned therein have no nexus to the detenu showing total non-
application of mind by the Detaining Authority or showing no nexus to the object of
the order and were, therefore, irrelevant or that some of them were vague. As pointed
out by the Supreme Court in various decisions mentioned above, even if any of the
grounds ware irrelevant or suffering from non-application of mind or vague, the whole
order of detention was vitiated as invalid. In this case since as the detention order
suffers from various vices mentioned above, the same would stand vitiated and was
invalid under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution.
79. Two other contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
One of them was that even before the detenu could make a representation against the
detention order, the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Maharashtra had publicly announced
that the detenu would not be released thereby making the detenu's right of having his
representation properly considered totally sham and invalid. The other was that many
of the documents supplied to the detenu along with the grounds being either totally
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
illegible end some of them blank, the detenu was deprived of his right to make an
effective representation.
80. Since this petition could be disposed of on the first contention as to irrelevancy
and vagueness of the grounds, it is not necessary to deal with the said two
contentions.
81. In my view, therefore, under the circumstances, the detention order cannot be
sustained and deserved to be set aside.
(28-7-1981)
PER MEHTA, J.:— I have had the advantage of listening to the judgment delivered
by my learned brother Rege, J. I wish to say at the outset that I agree with and
endorse all the conclusion arrived at by my learned brother. Since the arguments on
both the sides have been elaborate and exhaustive, I wish to add a few observations
in support of the conclusion that the grounds in the instant case are vague in some
cases and in some others no nexus hae been established between the detenu and the
objectionable activities.
Page: 923
82. Before dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the detenu, I should like
to deal with the question of Coon's power of judicial review. We have been reminded
by the learned Advocate General on more than one occasion that wo were not sitting in
criminal appeals; that out jurisdiction was not extensive as that in criminal appeals.
He stated that the jurisdiction of the Court in detention matters was limited and
peripheral and that the jurisdiction was ??? of anticipation and suspicion. That indeed
is true. As observed by Lord Alkinson in 22 (Rex v. Halliday), 1917 Appeal Cases 260, at
page 275
“preventive detention being a precautionary measure, it must necessarily proceed
in all cases, to soma extent, on suspicion or anticipation as ??? from proof.”
The question then is as to what is the scope and extent of judicial review. Does it
mean that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority was wholly immune
from judicial review? Bhagwati, J. in Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal,
reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81 : A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 550 observed:—
“Where the liberty of the subject is involved, it is the bounden duty of the Court to
satisfy itself that all the safeguards provided by the law have been scrupulously
observed and the subject is not deprived of his personal liberty otherwise then in
accordance with law”.
83. Bhagwati, J. then went on to explain the scope and extent of judicial review in
the following words:—
“But that does not mean that subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority is
wholly immune from judicial review. The courts have by judicial decisions, limited
though it be, within which the validity of the subjective satisfaction can yet be
subjected to judicial scrutiny. The basic postulates on which the courts have
proceeded is that the subjective satisfaction being a condition precedent for the
exercise of the power conferred on the executive, the Court can always examine
whether the requisite satisfaction is arrived at by the authority: if it is not, the
condition precedent to the exercise of the power would not be fulfilled and the
exercise of the power would be bad. There are several grounds evolved by judicial
decisions for saying that no subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the authority as
required under the statute.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
84. The learned Judge, then proceeded to set out the following eight cases in which
Court's interference was called for:—
“1. The first and the simplest case was where the authority had not applied its mind
at all.
2. Where the power was exercised dishonestly or for an Improper purpose. Such a
case would also negative the existence of the satisfaction on the part of the
authority.
3. The satisfaction must be the satisfaction of the authority itself and therefore, if in
exercising the power, the authority has acted under the direction of another
body, then the exercise would be bad.
Page: 924
4. If the authority had disabled itself from applying its mind to the facts of each
individual case by self-created rules of policy or in any other manner, the
exercise of the power would be vitiated.
5. The order would be bad where it was based on the application of a wrong test of
the misconstruction of a statute.
6. The satisfaction must be grounded on materials which are of rationally probative
value. The grounds on which the satisfaction is based must be such as a rational
human being can consider connected with the facts in respect of which the
satisfaction is to be reached.
7. The discretion granted to the authority is to be exercised according to the rules of
reason and justice, not according to the private opinion ……………according to law
and not or humour, it was to be, not arbitrary, vague, fanciful, but legal and
regular.
8. The order would be bad if the authority had come to a conclusion so
unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.”
In all the above cases the Court's interference was called for.
85. In the case of Shiv Prasad Bhatnagar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
(1981) 2 SCC 456 : A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 870. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court
described the powers of review pithily in the following terms:—
“It is now well settled that grounds of detention must be pertinent and not
irrelevant, proximate and not stale, precise and not vague. Irrelevance, staleness
and vagueness are vices any single one of which is sufficient to vitiate a ground of
detention.”
86. The order of detention herein has been impugned by the detenu on the
following three grounds:—
(i) That the detenu was supplied with documents in support of the grounds, which
were Illegible in some cases and in other cases completely blank. That being so,
the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation against the
said order and consequently there was a breach of Article 22(5) of the
Constitution.
(ii) The second ground on which the order of detention was assailed was that the
grounds furnished to the detenu were vague in some cases and in other cases no
nexus had been established to connect the detenu with the activities complained
of.
(iii) The third ground on which the order of detention was impugned was that the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra had categorically pronounced in a

Press Conference as also in a meeting with a delegation of trade unionists that he
had no intention to release the detenu at any cost. These public statements had
been made prior to the detenu making his representation. Since the
Page: 925
Chief Minister held the portfolio of home and as such he would consider the detenu's
representation, it was contended that he had pre-judged the issue and the detenu's
representation under these circumstances would not be impartially considered. It was
urged that on this ground also the order of detention ought to be struck dawn.
87. I shall now deal with the first contention raised on behalf of the detenu. Shri
Patel, learned Counsel on behalf of the detanu, produced before us a number of
documents which had been supplied to the detenu. He pointed out that several of
these documents were illegible, some of them were over-written and some others were
completely blank. He stated that in these circumstances it was well-niegh impossible
for the detenu to make any effective and meaningful representation and thus the
detenu's fundamental right of making a representation to the Detaining Authority
under Article 22(5) of the Constitution had been violated. It will be relevant at this
stage to refer to certain dales of the events as they occured.
88. The order of detention in the instant case was dated the 23rd of June 1981. On
24th June 1981 the detenu was arrested near the Shivaji Park Maidan where he was
about to address a public meeting and the order of detention was served on him. At
that time the grounds were not sewed on the detenu. The detenu was than taken to
the Akola District Prison. On 28th June 1981 a Policse Officer was deputed to proceed
to the Akola District Prison with the grounds of detantion and the documents. The said
officer attempted to serve the grounds of detention as also the documents on the
detenu. The detenu, however, refused to accept the grounds as also the documents
accompanying the grounds and requested the officer to deliver the same to his wife.
On 29-6-1981 a Police Officer visited the detenu's residence in Bombay and tried to
serve the grounds as also the documents on the detenu's wife as per his request. On
that day the detenu's wife refused to accept the same and directed the Police Officer
to serve the same on the detenu's advocate. On the next day i.e. on 30th June 1981
the detenu's wife accepted the grounds as well as the documents furnished therewith.
89. The learned Advocate General has pointed out that the documents which were
illegible or blank were part of the set which had been furnished to the detenu's wife.
The learned Advocate General stated that the grounds and documents which were
furnished to the detenu were neither illegible not blank. They ware all legible copies.
The teamed Advocate General contended that under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution the
fundamental right of being served with the grounds as wall as the material on which
the Detaining Authority relied, was the right of the detenu and that right could not be
transferred by the detenu to any other person. In support of this submission, the
learned Advocate General referred us to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
23
(Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax), reported in A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 148
at p. 163 wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe:—
Page: 926
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“This, in my opinion is the true position and it cannot, therefore, be urged that it is
open to a citizen to waive his fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court is the bulwark of the fundamental fights which
have been for the first time enacted in the Constitution and it would be a sacrilege
to whittle down those rights in the manner attempted to be done.”
90. In the instant case the Detaining Authority in the first instance made an
attempt to serve the detenu with a set of grounds as also the documents on which the
order was based. The detenu, however, refused to accept that set of grounds and
documents. He directed the officer who attempted to serve the grounds and the
documents to serve the same on his wife. It is the case of the respondents, which has
not been denied, that it was the set which was served on the detenu's wife which
contained illegible and blank documents. It a detenu chooses not to accept the
grounds end the documents served on him and directs the officer who had corns to
serve the same, to furnish the grounds and the documents to his wife or his advocate,
is it then open to him to make a grievance that the set of papers served on his wife
contained illegible and blank documents? Assuming that in a given case a detenu
refused to accept the grounds and the documents and call upon the Detaining
Authority to serve them on his wife and the Detaining Authority extends the facility of
serving the grounds as welt as the documents on his wife and in the process of this
circumlocution the statutory limit of five days lapses, will it be open then to the
detenu to say that the grounds had not been served within the period of five days as
proscribed under section 8 of the National Security Act? I think not. On the same
analogy assuming that the grounds of detention and the documents served on the
detenu were refused by him with a direction to serve them on his wife and the set of
grounds and documents served on his wife contained illegible documents, can it then
be stated by the detenu that he was prevented from making an effective and a
meaningful representation to the Detaining Authority? I agree with the submission
made by the learned Advocate General that fundamental rights cannot be waived
much less can they be transferred by one citizen to another. I, therefore, do not think
that there is any valid basis in the grievance made by Shri Patel that the detenu was
served with illegible or blank copies of the grounds and documents. In the
circumstances stated by me aforesaid, I do not think that this ground is tenable and I,
therefore, reject it.
91. I shall now deal with the second contention submitted by Shri Patel that the
grounds of detention were vague in some cases and in other cases no nexus had been
established between the detenu and the objection-able activities. Unlike in some of
the case which we have coma across in the course of the present sitting, which
contained only one or two grounds, the Detaining Authority in the instant case has
formulated a battery of grounds, as many as eighteen, against the detenu. The
Detaining Authority appears to have taken some pains to weave out a pattern of
activity indulged in by the detenu in the course of his career as a trade unionist. This
pattern
Page: 927
of activity comprised of incidence of violence in eighteen industries or factories

wherein the detenu made an attempt and in some succeeded to have his union i.e. the
Association of Engineering Workers or the Maharashtra General Kamgar Union
recognised by the management thereof. If in the course of this attempt the
management resisted his will, then, according to the Detaining Authority, the detenu
encouraged the workers to indulge in threats gheraos, assaults and in one case, even
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
murder. The pattern of activities thus set out in the grounds was in respect of each
industry which Constituted a ground in itself and under each head of ground, several
instances of violence or threats were enumerated. Cumulatively, therefore, the
grounds were eighteen in number involving eighteen industries or factories and the
incidents of violence therein numbered seventy in all.
92. At this stage, it will be relevant to consider the question as to what is a

“ground” since the learned Advocate General submitted that the seventy instances
narrated in the various grounds did not constitute a “ground” but that only the
preamble or the conclusion formulated by the Detaining Authority could be considered
as a “ground”. The learned Advocate General contended that the various instances
ought not to be considered as forming part of the grounds. It has, therefore, become
necessary to find out as to what is meant by the word “ground”. The Supreme Court
gave the following definition of the word “ground” in the case of ??? Das cited
theretofore. The learned Judges stated:—
“It is obvious that the “grounds” mean all the basic facts and materials which have
been taken into account by the Detaining Authority in making the order of detention
and on which, therefore, the order of detention is based. “Grounds” does not merely
mean a recital or reproduction of a ground of satisfaction of the authority in the
language of section 3 of the Act; nor is its connotation restricted to a bare
statement of conclusions of fact. It means something more. That “something” is the
factual constituent of the ‘grounds’ on which the subjective satisfaction of the
authority is based. The basic facts and material particulars, therefore, which are the
foundation of the order of detention will also be covered by ‘ground’ within the
contemplation of Article 22(5) and section 8 and are required to be communicated
to the detenu unless their disclosure is considered by the authority to be against
the public interest.”
93. I am, therefore, of the view that the eighteen grounds consist not only of the
pattern sought to be established by the Detaining Authority but also all the incidents,
seventy in number which have been enumerated in the grounds supplied to the
detenu. It is also important to note and this is uncontroverted, that in none of these
seventy incidents of violence was the detenu involved directly or involved even as an
abettor.
94. The several grounds and incidents have been analysed and scanned seriatim by
my learned brother and it is not necessary for me to go into great detail except to say
that the ground in the instant case ???
Page: 928
suffer from two glaring infirmities: firstly, that in a number of cases the incidents are
irrelevant or extraneous and have no nexus as between the detenu end the
objectionable activity; secondly that the incidents fail to fit into the pattern of activity
set out in the ground i.e. the recognition of his union by the detenu. In the first
category come the following incidents:—
Ground one: This ground relates to an industry known as Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt.
Ltd., situated at Kolshet Road, Thane. In this case it has been stated that the
detenu organised a rival union and insisted on the management recognising the
same. Ground 1, incident No. (ii) is in the following terms:—
“Some of the unidentified workers suspected to be of your union assaulted one Shri
Siddanath Baurao Misra, watchmen of the company on his head with iron bars on
30-6-1980 at 06.15 hrs. threatening him not to go to work. The offence was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
registered at Kapurbawadi Police Station. The case was classified as true but
undetected.”
95. On the face of it, the Detaining Authority was not aware of the names of the
workers who had indulged in the assault on the watchman of the company. However,
the ground mentioned that these workers were suspected as belonging to the union of
the detenu. The learned Advocate General referred us to the documents accompanying
the grounds and in the instant case the relevant document was Ex. No. 3. Ex. No. 3 is
the First Information Report lodged by the watchman. In the F.I.R. all that is stated is
that the accused were the workers of Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. ltd. The complainant
further stated that while going to work, he was assaulted with iron bars by some
workers telling him not to go to work and that if he did so he would be beaten. Ex. No.
2 on which reliance has been placed by the Detaining Authority does not carry the
matter further. Therefore, in this ground the Detaining Authority has complained
against some unidentified workers and he suspected them to belong to the union of
the detenu, without there being any material from which the inference could be drawn.
96. Similar is the case with ground No. 1, incident No. (v). In this instance it has
been stated:—
“On 13-6-1980 at 02.30 hrs. some unidentified persons assaulted one Shantaram
Indersingh Farista, Security Supervisor, Wellman (Hindustan) pvt. Ltd. while he
was on duty threatening him not to work. This obviously appears to be the work of
your followers. An offence was registered at Kapurbawadi Police Station and the
F.I.R. is Ex. No. 6”.
97. The F.I.R. (Ex. No. 6) lodged by the said Farista stated that the accused were
workers of Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. of the 3rd shift whose names were not
known. The complainant further stated that of late in the above company, workers
were going slow on work and left the machines running. They left the factory and
stayed outside. At about 2.30 A.M. when the
Page: 929
complainant want near the company 15 or 20 workers who were sitting outside the
company should “Pakdo, Maro”. The accompanying Havaldar and a constable rescued
him. The assailants ware the workers of the company. The F.I.R. in the instant case
also does not throw any light with regard to the identity of the ‘unidentified workers’
nor does it disclose the fact whether these assailants were the members of the union
of the detenu. There is, therefore, no nexus established as between the miscreant on
the one hand and the detenu or his union on the other.
98. With regard to ground No. 1, incident No. (vii) the position is much the same.
In this instance it has been stated:—
“Not satisfied With the above violent activity, on 16-8-1980 at 13.30 hrs. Dilbag M.
Tiwari, the same Production Officer of the company, was stabbed by some sneaking
assailants near the factory while he was going to the factory. As the assailants could
not be identified, the case was registered at Kapurbawdi Police Station and was
closed as true but undetected.”
99. In this instance, reliance has been placed on Ex. No. 9 which is the F.I.R. of the
said Tiwari. The name of the accused has been shown as ‘one Wellman workers name
and address not known.’ The complainant stated that in his company Dr. Samant's
Maharashtra General Kamgxsar Union was the union. Following the lock out on 13-3-
1980, the company was closed. But the workers kept sitting near the gate. The above
company's worker attacked him with a shrap weapon. The complainant further stated
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that as he was packing his scooter near the gate, one person working in the company
came from behind and attacked him with a sharp weapon and ran away. He was
chased by a policeman, but could not be cought. He stated that this incident was
witnessed by four other workers whose names he did not know. In the case of this
incident also the F.I.R. does not reveal the identity of the sneaking assailant who
stabbed the Production Officer Tiwari. Consequently the remark on the F.I.R. that the
case was closed as true but not detected. The question, therefore, is if the complainant
in each of these cases complained of unidentified workers or persons or sneaking
assailants and then wanton to say that these persons were suspected of belonging to
the union of the detenu, was there any basis or material on which he could have
arrived at that conclusion? When the Detaining Authority draws the same conclusion,
can it be stated that it is a conclusion which any reasonable authority could have
arrived at on the material before him? In all these incident? mentioned heretofore, it is
difficult to see how any nexus has been established as between the assailants and the
detenu or even his union.
100. The learned Advocate General submitted that even if ground appeared to be
vague for the reason that the names of the assailants were not disclosed, the detenu
could have asked for particulars, a right which he enjoyed under Article 22(5) of the
Constitution. He stated that if such particulars had been called for, the Detaining
Authority would have been in a
Page: 930
position to clarify the names and thus to give a difiniteness to the vague ground. In
support of his contention the learned Advocate Generel relied upon the Supreme Court
ruling in the case of The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Shridhar Vaidya, reported in
A.I.R. 1951 S.C. 157, wherein Kania, C.J. observed:—
“But when grounds which have a rational connection with the suds mentioned in
section 3 of the Act are supplied, the first condition is satisfied. If the grounds are
not sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation, the detenu can rely on
his second right and if he likes may ask for particulars which will enable him to
make the representation. On an infringement of either of those two rights, the
detained person has a right to approach the Court that there has been an
infringement of his fundamental right and even if the infringement of the second
part of the right under Art. 22(5) is established he is bound to be released by the
Court.”
101. The learned Advocate General also drew our attention to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of 24 (Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. The State of Tamil Nadu),
reported in (1979) 1 SCC 465 : A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 541, wherein their Lordships
observed:—
“So it is that where insufficient particulars are mentioned in the grounds, the
detenu is entitled to call for better particulars. That is a right which flows from the
constitutional right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representation
of course, where the grounds are vague no question would arise of the detenu
asking for better particulars.”
102. Relying on these authorities, the teamed Advocate General contended that
had the detenu called for further particulars from the Detaining Authority, the
Detaining Authority would have been in a position to supplant some precision or
definiteness to the ground, which in the instant case, was vague.
103. In this connection, reference may be made to the Supreme Court decision in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the case of Prabhu Dayal Deorah v. District Magistrate Kamrup, reported in (1974) 1
SCC 103 : A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 183, wherein the learned Judges were pleased to hold:—
“If a ground communicated to the detenu is vagus, the fact that the detenu could
have, but did not, ask for further particulars is immaterial. That would be relevant
only for considering the question whether the ground is vague or not.”
104. Now in the three incidents cited above, the Detaining Authority disclosed in no
uncertain terms that he was not in a position to furnish the names of the workers who
had assaulted the company employees. In these circumstances. I fail to understand
what purpose would have been served and the detenu asked for any particulars from
the Detaining Authority. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the ground which is
vegue in the first instance could have gained any precision or definiteness had the
detenu asked for further particulars from the Detaining Authority, I am, therefore, not
impressed with
Page: 931
this submission of the learned Advocate General and in respect of these three
incidents in ground No. 1, I hold that these grounds are irrelevant and no nexus has
been established between the detenu and the assailants or the acts complained of. To
that extent, these grounds Would also be vague.
105. I shall now refer to ground No. 1 incident No. (x). In this instance, it is
alleged that on 12-1-1981 the detenu held a meeting of 500 workers at the company's
gate. The detenu addressed the meeting for a few minutes and then left abruptly.
After his departure, his close assistants T.S. Boarde, Ganeral Secretary of the detenu's
union, Shri Mungekar, Joint Secretary, S.K. Shaikh, Chabukswar, Ram Avatar Singh
and others addressed the workers and instigated them to commit offences like
assaults and rioting in order to create an atmosphere of terror so that the
management of Wellman as also other managements would coma round and settle the
matters with the detenu. On the next day an offence was registered against T.S.
Borade and seven others at Kapurbawdi Police Station. The report of this meeting has
been furnished as Ex. No. 14. On a perusal of this document it is clear that the
instigation to commit offences or to create an atmosphere of terror was not induced by
the detenu himself but by his colleagues or col laboratory. In the ground itself it is
mentioned that the detenu left the place after addressing the meeting only for a few
minutes. Can, therefore, the detenu be held responsible for the speeches made by his
colleagues? This ground, therefore, also lacks any nexus as far as the detenu is
concerned.
106. The next ground is ground No. 1 incident No. (xvii). In this ground it was
alleged that from the Incidents in Wellman (Hindustan) Pvt. Ltd. it became clear that
the detenu had encouraged violence which had alarmed not only the loyal workers, the
management staff and other workers and managements in the area of Kolshet Road
but also the law abiding public on the public roads and those using public transport;
thus posing a threat to public order. Now from the 17 incidents which have been
appended to ground No. 1, it would be difficult to find any material from which one
could conclude that it was the detenu who had encouraged violence amongst the
workers. There appears to be no Oasis or no material whatever on which the Detaining
Authority could have come to this conclusion, I must, therefore, conclude that the
conclusion arrived at by the Detaining Authority is a conclusion which no reasonable
person could have arrived at.
107. Ground No. 2 concerns as industry known as Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. in the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
preamble to this ground it has been Ltd. stated that in August 1980 the detenu triad
to infiltrate his union and have it recognised by the management of this concern.
Since the union was not recognised, it is alleged that the detenu instigated his
followers to use unfair labour practices such as go-slow which bagan from 16-11-1980.
Here again there appears no basis for arriving at this conclusion that it was the detenu
who instigated the workers to follow a go slow policy. But what is more surprising is
that in incident No. (i) which is appended to this ground it has been stated that on 6-
10-1980
Page: 932
a bus taking the loyal workers of the said company proceeding to the Railway Station
was stoned by workers owing allegiance to the union of the detenu, that Sour workers
in the bus ware injured and damage of Rs. 800/- was caused to the bus. On a perusal
of Ex. No. 23 which is the F.I.R. of some workers travelling in the bus, one does not
find any mention of the fact that the assailants ware the persons who owed allegiance
to the union of the detenu. There is, therefore, no connection established between the
perpetrators who petted the stones and the union of the detenu, muchless with the
detenu himself. This ground also, therefor, must be held to be vague and irrelevant.
108. Ground No. 3 concerns the factory of Teksons Pvt. Ltd., situated at koshet
Road, Thane. In the preamble it is stated that the detenu tried to enter his union into
the factory and have it recognised by the management. In incident No. (iv) of this
ground concerning Teksons Pvt. Ltd., it is stated that on 30-5-1981 at 16.00 hrs. the
detenu's followers obviously with his covert encouragement assaulted Shri Sarvatsing
who had approached the management to seek a job as a Security Officer. The incident,
it is alleged, took place in a local train between Kanjur Marg and Ghatkopar, where the
said Sarvatsing was assaulted with a cycle chain in the presence of the travelling
public. This incident caused commotion in the train and created panic and terror
amongst the law abiding commuters. Reliance has been placed on Ex. No. 38 which
was the F.I.R. of the said Sarvatsingh. In the column, name of the accused it has been
mentioned: In all 7 persons name and addresses not know of whom two wore from
Teksons Company. The complainant stated that he was interviewed and asked to
commence worked from 31-5-1981. He then stated that seven persons armed with
knife, gupti and cycle chains cams in the train and threateningly asked him for the
letter of appointment, since he did not hand over the letter of appointment, they beat
him with cycle chains. He stated that he was not aware of the fact that there was a
strike in the company. He also stated that he would be able to identify two out of the
seven assailants. On a perusal of the F.I.R., it will be seen that not a word is stated
that the seven assailants belongs to the union of the detenu although what was
mentioned was that two of the workers were from Teksons Pvt. Ltd. This incident is
also an example of how the Detaining Authority has relied on his imagination in
arriving at the conclusion that the assailants were the followers of the detenu and that
they had received covert encouragement from the detenu without the slightest basis
for arriving at such a conclusion. The grounds, therefore, has no connection or nexus
as between the detenu and the assistance, so far as this incident which has been
complained of.
109. Ground No. 4 relates to the factory of Uni-Deritand Precisions Castings which
was situated at S.V. Road, Manpada, Thane. In incident No. (i) appended to this
ground it has been stated that on 8-3-1981 and 24-3-1981 the followers of the union
of the detenu squatted inside the factory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page: 933
‘obviously on your instructions’ and damaged expensive moulds worth Rs. 9,200/- in
respect of which two criminal cases were registered at the Kapurbawdi Police Station.
The F.I.R. in respect of this incident has been furnished to the detenu as Ex. No. 40.
On a perusal of this F.I.R. it becomes apparent that there was nothing in the F.I.R. to
suggest that the miscreants who caused damage to the expensive moulds were the
followers of the union belonging to the detenu. There is also nothing in the F.I.R. to
suggest that the damage was caused under the instructions of the detenu. There is,
therefore, no material or basis upon which the Detaining Authority could have come to
the conclusion that the miscreants in respect of this Incident belonged to the union of
the detenu or that they were working under his instructions.
110. Ground No. 7 related to a company known as Ferrodie Ltd. situated at Wagle
Estate, Thane. Here also it is stated that the detenu wanted the management to
recognise his union and for that purpose he ordered the management to see him at his
residence. Incident No. (i) appended to this ground is in respect of an incident which
took place on 13-4-1981 when a lorry going out of the factory with finished goods was
obstructed by the followers of the detenu and its driver was threatened. Now it is
pertinent to note that in this ground only a nubulous expression such as ‘your
followers’ has been made use of. Who the followers were or on what basis it was stated
that they were the followers of the detenu, is not mentioned in that ground. Ex. No. 56
the F.I.R. on which reliance has been placed, does no make this position clear.
111. A similar expression i.e. ‘your followers’ can also be found in incident No. (i)
appended to ground No. 8, which is in respect of a company known as Ashok Sunil &
Company situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In this incident it was alleged that on 6-5-
1981 the followers of the detenu gheraoed the management, after which an offence
was registered. Here also no attempt has been made to snow any connection between
the detenu and the miscreants.
112. Ground No. 9, incident No. (i) concerns a factory known as Fouress Engineer
Pvt. Ltd. situated at Wagle Estate, Thane. In incident No. (i) appended to this ground
it has been stated that on 19-12-1980 the detenu organised a public meeting in front
of the gate of the company and his associates Arivind Bhiva Wani and others made
provocative speeches and used abusive words against the police and the management
at the instigation of the detenu. The relevant documents on which reliance has been
placed is marked Ex. No. 66. On a perusal of this document there appears to be no
basis for coming to the conclusion that Want had made a Speech at the instigation of
the detenu.
113. Another incident which savors of rank ambiguity is furnished in incident No.
(iii) of ground No. 12 which concerns a factory known as Golden Dyes Corporation. In
incident No. (iii) it has been mentioned that on 19-2-1981 Shantaram Choudhari and
others held a meeting at the gate end threatened the management that they would
not be allowed to go by
Page: 934
Thane Agra Road. In this ground it has not even been mentioned that Shataram
Choudhary had any connection with the detenu or his union. However, in the report
prepared by the police and furnished to the detenu as Ex. No. 85 there is a bald
statement that these men belonged to the Datta Samant Union. A labour union may
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consist of hundreds of workers as its members. The question: can the President or an
office bearer of a labour union be held responsible for the individual acts of its
members unities it was shown that the President or the office bearers directly
instigated the same?
114. In incident No. (iv) relating to ground No. 12 in respect of Golden Dyes
Corporation it has been stated that on Naronha of Francis Kaleins Pvt. Ltd. wanted to
meet the management of Golden Dyes. He was obstructed by ‘your man’ and was thus
unable to enter the factory premises, but was able to enter the factory premises only
on the intervention of the police. Whilst coming out of the factory, Naronha was held
and robbed of his brief case. If the Detaining Authority makes use of expressions like
‘your followers’, ‘your men’ ‘workers belonging to your union’ without given any
specific names, how is the detenu expected to make an effective representation
against such charges eave and except by making a bald denial of the same.
115. In ground No. 16 which related to a factory known as K.R. Steal Pvt. Ltd., the
detenu was alleged to have again made an attempt to infiltrate his union into the said
factory and resorted to the familiar pressure tactics of ‘go-slow’ policy. In incident No.
(???) appended to that ground it has been stated:—
‘Following your obvious advice so openly given on 12-5-1981 the workers defeated
the tyres of the car of the Commercial Manager, entered the office of the Personal
Manager and manhandled him, with the result that the management was forced to
close the operations of the factory till 16-5-1981.’
116. In respect of this incident it has not even been stated that the workers
belonged to the union of the detenu. In the report (Ex. No. 105) so far as this incident
is concerned, there is no mention thereof and all that is stated is that there was an
amicable settlement between the management and the workers.
117. Another example of a vague and ambiguous ground is furnished by ground
No. 17 which concerns a company known as Bayar India Ltd. It is stated in this ground
that on 5-6-1981, ten to fifteen workers of Bayer Co. controlled by the union headed
by the detenu wont to the residence of one Bauskar, the Administrative Manager of
that company at Dombivali in his absence and met his wife and threaded her that they
would murder the said Bauskar and dispose of his body in such a way that she would
not be able to set her ??? on it. This had a terrible psychological effect on the lady and
also on the neighbours living in the area who had heard of the episode. The document
relied upon in this case is the F.I.R. lodged by one Usha Bauskar. It this F.I.R. (Ex. No.
106) the lady complained that about five
Page: 935
or six parsons game and stood near the gallary next to her windows. One of them was
a bearded person who asked her whether her husband was at home. When she replied
in the negative that parson asked her as to where her husband had gone. When the
complainant told the bearded parson that she did not know where her husband was
those persons asked her where her husband was roaming when the company was
closed and there was a lock out. She then informed those persons that she did not
know the where-abouts of her husband. Two of the parsons then told her that she
would see her husband in pieces. The complainant stated that these persons appeared
to be marathi people and were young. On the basis of this F.I.R., it is difficult to see
how any one could come to the conclusion that these inert belonged to a labour union
controlled by the detenu.
118. In all the incidents narrated above, it will be seen that bald statements like
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘your followers’, ‘your men’ and ‘workers controlled by you’ were used without the
slightest basis for coming to this conclusion. If the grounds are ambiguous to the
extent to which, all the incidents narrated above are, then it would be difficult for the
detenu to make any effective representation against the grounds of detention. In the
above incidents no nexus has been established as between the detenu and the
assailants or perpetrators of the violent activities mentioned in the various incidents.
119. I shall now discuss and deal with four such incidents, which do not form part
of pattern sought to be established and which is the second reason, why I consider the
order of detention to be vitiated. The first of such incidents is ground No. 1, incident
No. (iv) which was in relation to a worker of Rubber Products Pvt. Ltd. It is stated in
the said incident that on 8-1-1981 at 13.15 hrs. Ramnarayan Sarojee, ‘a follower of
your union’ was found with a Rampuri knife by Head Constable M.S. Patil of Wagle
Estate Police Station. He was charge-sheeted under section 37(1) read with section
135 of the Bombay Police Act. The document relied upon in this incident is Ex. No. 26
which was the F.I.R. given by H.C. Patil, in which the N.C. stated that a prohibitory
order under section 27(1)(b) of the Bombay Police Act had boon promulgated by the
District Magistrate. The Head Constable then stated that on seeing him patrolling, the
accused person started running away from the place near Rubber Products Co. Since
suspicion was arosed he was chased and caught, Apart from the fact that Ex. No. 26
furnished no clue to the fact that the said Sarojee was a follower of the union
belonging to the detenu, it is difficult to understand how the possession of a Rampuri
knife by a worker could establish the pattern which the Detaining Authority sought to
establish in the grounds. This incident, therefore, is totally extraneous to the pattern
sought to be established by the Detaining Authority.
120. The next incident concerns the company known as Voltas Ltd. in the ground
which has been marked as No. 5. In incident No. (i) appended to this ground it has
been stated that on 18-3-1981 one V.J. Naik belonging to the detenu's union abused
and assaulted the Security Officer end in this connection one N.C. was recorded at
Vartaknagar Police Station. The extract of
Page: 936
N.C. which was furnished to the detenu was marked as Ex. No. 48. On a perusal of this
exhibit it is noticed that an innocuous incident had occurred in the canteen involving
the canteen manager and the said Naik. It appears that the said Naik tried to steel
some tomatoes from the canteen. The canteen manager apprehended him and
questioned him. The Security Officer had also intervened in the quarrel between the
two. This incident is totally unconnected with the pattern sought to be established by
the Detaining authority end further it is an incident which has no nexus with the
detenu.
121. The next incident is incident No. (iii) to ground No. 5 involving the same
company i.e. Voltas Ltd. In this it is stated that on 25-5-1981 ‘your followers’ abused
and threatened Sunder Badrinath Yadav, a supervisor of the factory who lodged his
N.C. complaint. The N.C. complaint has been marked as Ex. No. 50. This also is an
incident which is so innocuous that it cannot be stated that it had any connection with
the pattern of tactics of infiltration and recognition of a union within a factory. As in
the previous incident, this incident is also a stray incident of abuses and threats given
by one worker to a supervisor or a canteen manager of the factory.
122. The above instances would go to show that there are certain incidents
mentioned in the grounds which are totally unconnected with the general pattern
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority.

123. At this stage it will be pertinent to cite the observations of the Supreme Court
in the case of 25 (Anil Dev v. State of West Bengal), reported in (1974) 4 SCC 514 :
A.I.R. 1974, S.C. 832, wherein the learned Judges were pleased to lay down:—
Of course, the veil of subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority cannot be
lifted by the courts with a view to appreciate its objective sufficiency. Nevertheless,
the opinion of the officer must be honest and real and not so fanciful or imaginary
that on the facts alleged no rational individual will entertain the opinion necessary
to justify detention. So also if the grounds relied on have nothing to do with the
prejudicial purposes stipulated in the statute, no nexus exists and the order is bad.
Even if the incident atributed to the detenu has some connection with the
obnoxious activities, it should not be too trivial. In substance not too State in point
of time as to snap the rational link that must exist between the vicious episode and
the prejudicial activity sought to be interdicted.
124. On a perusal of the various incidents stated above, the conclusion is evitable
that several of the incidents are completely vague and no nexus has been established
as between the detenu and the activities complained of or the perpetrators thereof.
There are several incidents which are totally unconnected with the pattern which has
been formulated in the grounds i.e. of detenu's attempt to infilterate his union in
several industrial establishments.
125. At the end of the grounds, the Detaining Authority has annexed an epilogue
which is the genesis of the pattern of behaviour indulged in by the detenu. In this
paragraph (which has not been numbered) it is stated:—
Page: 937
“From the above narrative of events that have followed your entry into 18 industrial
units in the limits of the Thane Police Commissionerate it is abundantly clear that
there is a definite pattern in your tactics which disturb public order. Every time you
attempted to dislodge the recognised union, you do so by openly flouting the labour
laws and demanding direct and immediate recognition from the management. To
that end you encouraged your followers to indulge in violent and lawless activities
like threats, assaults, rioting, damage to parsons and property and even
murder……………. The extent of violence is such and the forms it has taken so
alarming and the area covered so vast and the population affected so great that
public order has inevitably been disturbed by the frequent and repeated cases of
assault and intimation by your associates with your active support and
encouragement.”
126. On a perusal of the various grounds and the incidents annexed thereto, it is
difficult to find any material or basis on which the Detaining Authority Could have
some to the conclusion that it was the detenu who had encouraged his followers or
could have given active support in their violent and criminal activities. I am, therefore,
of the view the grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 17 are totally irrelevant and bear no
connection with the detenu. To that extent they vitiate the order of detention. The
incidents mentioned in grounds 2, 5 and 8 are stray incidents which have no
connection whatsoever with the pattarn sought to be established in the grounds by the
Detaining Authority. This also would vitiate the order of detention.
127. In view of the fact that I have come to the conclusion that the grounds are
vitiated by the vices of irrelevance and vagueness, I do not think it necessary to deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with the third ground relating to the Press Conference in which the Chief Minister is
alleged to have made certain observations in respect of the detenu, thereby breaching
his representation.
128. Finally it needs to be stated that we are all-too-aware that as a consequence
of our decision we shall be unleashing upon an unsuspecting populace a person who,
we are informed, has come to pose a serious threat to the industrial peace of this city
and the State. That indeed is unfortunate. But, hard cases cannot be permitted to
make bad taws. We can do no better than to repeat in ringing tones the never-to-be-
forgotten words of Justice Frankfurter, “The history of personal liberty is largely the
history of insistance on observance of procedure. And observance of procedure has
been the bastion against want on assaults on personal liberty over the years.”
Meticulous adherence of procedure established by law is the only safeguard of personal
freedom.
129. The order of detention, therefore, cannot be sustained.
ORDER
130. In the result the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers
(a) and (b). The order of detention is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be set
at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Page: 938
131. Writ to be directed to the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, Arthur

Road, Bombay.
132. The oral application made for leave to appeal to Supreme Court is rejected.
133. Oral application for stay made by the teamed P.P. is also rejected.
134. Order of detention set aside.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 1981 Bom CR 885 Vidula Vchambersin 20230826 172558 1 42

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

J 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 1981 Bom CR 885 Vidula Vchambersin 20230826 172558 1 42

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 1981 Bom CR 885 Vidula Vchambersin 20230826 172558 1 42

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Saturday, August 26, 2023

1981 SCC OnLine Bom 144 : 1981 Bom CR 885

Bombay High Court

Vinita Dattatraya Samant … Petitioner;

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

3. On 25-6-1981 respondent No. 1 made a report to the Stats Government under

4. On 25-6-1981 the Detaining Authority-respondent No. 1 made a report to the

7. On 7-7-1981, respondent No. 1 who was expected to consider the representation

order in reference to each of the grounds be considered.

Ground (1)(ii):—This refers to assault by unidentified workers suspected to be of

Ground (2)(i):—It relates to some unidentified persons on 6-2-1980 stoning the

Ground (2)(iv):—It alleges that on 8-1-1981 one Ramanarayan Sarojee alleged to

workers alleged to be the followers of the detenu intimidating the management by

Ground (9) Regarding Fouress Engineering (India) Private Ltd.

Ground (11) Regarding United Wire Rope Co.

Ground (12)(iv):—This ground relates to an incident of 9th May 1981 where it is

Ground (13)(ii):—Alleges an assault by some workers belonging to the detenu's

Ground (15)(iii):—This relates to an incident of 24th March 1981 when a loyal

Ground (18):—Re National Rayon Corporation, it relates to clash between the

Ground (1)(iii):—It relates to a notice dated 17-8-1980 issued by the Wellman

1969 S.C. 1004.

question of what is vague. It must vary according to the circumstances of each

Ground 4(i):—Re. Uni-Deritand Precision Castings.

Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra had categorically pronounced in a

of activity comprised of incidence of violence in eighteen industries or factories

92. At this stage, it will be relevant to consider the question as to what is a

sought to be established in the grounds by the Detaining Authority.

131. Writ to be directed to the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison, Arthur

You might also like