SMT. BIMLA DEWAN v. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

Citation: [1983] 1 S.C.R. 42

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: D.A. DESAI, BAHARUL ISLAM, A. VARADARAJAN

Judgment text

A 42 SMt. lllMLA DEWAN v. • LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI July 30, 1982 [D. A. DESAI, BAl! ARUL ISLAM AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ . ] National Security Act, 7980-Section 3(2)-Nature of acts prejudicial to maintenance ofpublic order-Inclusion of past cases of acquittal in grounds of detention-Validity. The husband of the petitioner was detained by an order made under section 3(2) of the Act. , The grounds of detention in support of the order rCferred fo a number of criminal cases involving the detenu in many of which he had been acquitted. The allegations in cases pending against the detenu were : that a Municipal Councillor had complained that when the staff of the Corpora- - tioo warited to apprehend some persons for purposes of prosecution, the detenu alOng with 70 others bad Pelted stones etc. resulting in damage to a building; that whisky was being served in his restaurant; that a loadCd revolver along with live cartridges had been rec_overed from his restaurant; that a J~dy had ns.

This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is by Smt. Bimla Dew~n, wife of the detenu Shri Dev Raj De~an, 44 suPREMa COtJllT REPollts [1983) 1s. C. R. . resident of House No. 53, Gadodia Road, 146/2 Than Singh Nagar, Anand Parbat, Delhi, for quashing ·the order of _detention dated ' een filed in the High . court of Oelbi on l~. 10. 19 • • for quashing the very same order of detention d~ted 25. 9) 981 and that arguments in that Petition bad been beard in November 1981. itself. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the High Court of Delhi has by an order dated 4. 3. 1981 dismissed that Writ Petition and, therefore, only an appeal against that order would lie to this Courtjand this Writ _Petition is not maintainable. Though the learned counsel for the respondent invit. ed our attention to certain portions of that order dated 4. 3. 1982 of a Division Bench of the Delhi High. Court dismissing Writ Petition No.

126 of 1981 it was not contended by him that only an appeal against 'that order would lie to this Court and that this Writ Petition is noi maintainable.. It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to go in detail into this ground of objection taken in the counter-affidavit. ~l F9r the reasons mentioned above we are of the opinion that '. the order of deiention dated 25. 9;1981 is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. There will be no order as to costs. . . H. L. C. Petition allowed. ·. \