ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.
2. The present petition was filed by Babu Prasad Pandey against the order of detention in jail under Section 3 of the National Security Act (hereinafter referred to as N.S.A.). The brief facts as available from the ground of detention and the First Information Report of the case are that a report was brought to the Police Station by Hira Lal S/o Chunni Lal, a washer-man r/o Tendura, P.S. Bisanda, District Banda that the petitioner's wife had given birth to a child sometime early in the month of December. The mother of the informant Rookmani was asked by the petitioner to wash the clothes of his wife and the new born. She declined to do so on the ground that she had stopped doing the work of a washer woman for the last two years. This was not appreciated by the petitioner and he had taken the insult to her defiance to his heart. On the date of occurrence i.e. 27-1-2004 at about 4.00 p.m. the mother of the informant, Rookmani, was doing some work in the field of Rajauva. The petitioner, accompanied by Shivaram s/o Ram Das and Langi alias Nanna s/o Awadh Bihari alias Beta Pandit of his village accosted her there. The filthy abuses were hurled on her. When she resisted them from hurling abuses Langi smashed 3-4 slaps on her face and Shivaram snatched her woollen shawl. He gave a blow of hand on her breast. The petitioners started pulling dhoti from the person of Rookmani. Her body below her navel became exposed to public gaze. They have also dragged her to some distance by holding her legs in that naked condition. When the alarm was raised by this helpless woman they also removed Silver Lachha from her leg weighting about one pauv (200-250 gms.) The incident was witnessed by Ram Kunwaria d/o Dashrath, Dasia, wife of Lamatera Chamar and Billari, mother of Bhawa Chamar. Out of them Ramkunwaria provided Rookmani a piece of cloth which was used by her to tie the bundle of her grass to cover her nakedness. While withdrawing from the first spot of incident the petitioner alongwith his companions assaulted Nerwa s/o Budda Chamar and Neta s/o Merma Chamar. On their arrival in the village from the scene of occurrence they told the daughter of Raja Zamadar that this sari belongs to Rookmani and she should set it afire. She refused to do so. She was chastised and was forced to part with the bundle of pual held by her. The accused including the petitioner then set afire that pual and placed the dhoti of Rookmani over it. The drama did not end here. They sat down around the bon Fire and warmed their hands. These are the necessary facts from which following inferences flow :
(1) Their ulterior intent behind this entire act.
(2) they did not like her denial to wash the clothes of his wife and the new born kid during those days of her segregation. The real intention behind it was to cause fear amongst the downtrodden. To make them learn to be humble and remain subject to their mercy and dictates if they want to live in the village. There cannot any other inference flow from the act exposed to the society including beating of a young Chamar, chastisement of the young Scheduled Caste girl and forcing her to provide them pual. Burning the pual, putting on it the Dhoti of Rookmani in full public view inside the village. Denigration of a Harijan female in the above detailed manner apart. This entire scenario has carried the latent message of theirs in the downtrodden section of village inhabitance that do not treat themselves free citizen. The result of the act as earlier discussed was certainly to subjugate a particular section of the village polity to submit to their whims and fancies even after 56 years of the Independence though the Constitution has declared them equal and has also made arrangement for their well being, progress and improvement so that they may lead with dignity a decent peaceful life in the society sharing all types of platforms without any fear to their honour and life.
3. The entire act of the petitioner and his companions thus has resulted in effect causing of terror and panic in the mind of a particular section of the village inhabitants, therefore it cannot be said that from the facts and the circumstances enumerated above it is not a case of causing disturbance to public order in respect of particular class of people who were also inhabitants of the said village. These people even now cannot live as per their will, treating themselves free citizen of India is clear and loud from their acts despite a constitutional security to them. They find it hard to meet the two ends satisfactorily even now. To deprive them of all the basic amenities guaranteed in the Constitutional and various provisions made by Government after Government to enforce the will of the Constitution. They desired them to underlive the same age old slavery. The act of the petitioner and his companions thus undoubtedly falls within the mischief of the term public order. There is no alternative for this Court to draw from the facts and circumstances disclosed from the grounds of detention and as discussed by us above any different inference.
4. The next contention from the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the representation was belatedly submitted to the State Government by the District Magistrate despite the fact it was received in his office on 11-5-2004 itself. It was submitted to the State Government on 20-5-2004. The reason for this delay was offered by the District Magistrate in his counter affidavit in this manner that he had forwarded the representation to the Superintendent of Police, Banda for his comments upon the representation. The Superintendent of Police called comments from the S. H. O. who was the sponsoring authority in the case. Immediately on the receipt of the comments from the Senior Superintendent of Police, the District Magistrate on 20-5-2004 i.e. on the same day, forwarded the comments and the representation to the State Government. Sundays also intervened. Thus we do not find any force in this submission as well. The State Government had disposed of his representation on 25-5-2004 i.e. very promptly. It was received by it on 21-5-2004 so there is hardly any delay in the case of State Government in deciding the representation. The representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board alongwith the report of Government on 25-5-2004. It was received there on the same day, 25-5-2004. A short date was fixed for hearing by the board. The detention was confirmed by the advisory board after considering the representation and hearing the petitioner on the said date. Therefore, any lapse, whatever, it is, on the part of District Magistrate had been lost in the promptitude shown by the State Government in deciding. It is well within the time prescribed in law and did not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. The advisory board had submitted its report to the State Government on 8-6-2004, The order was communicated to the petitioner by jail authority on 21-6-2004. This is fortified by the Deputy Superintendent of Jail in his counter affidavit in para 10.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has challenged the facts but the official acts are performed in the normal course and no averment adverse to that fact is admissible in law unless the contrary is proved by cogent evidence by the petitioner as required in law. No such evidence is on the record.
6. We have nothing but to determine this issue that the contention is bereft of any force. No doubt the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate lacks in some details i.e. the date on which it was sent to the Superintendent of Police and the date on which the Superintendent of Police remitted it to S. H. O. but in the background of the present case this lapse apparently becomes innocuous and cannot be attached any undue weight by the Court.
7. Coming to the last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that two of the accomplice of the petitioner Shiv Ram and Langi alias Nanna s/o Awadh Bihari alias Beta Pandit have been treated compassionately by the State by recalling their detention order on a later date. The withdrawals were made on 21-6-2004. It was so done by the State Government under compulsion because the advisory board held that the detention order against these two persons was excessive as pointed out by learned AGA.
8. Be that as it may, in our opinion, no benefit can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of revocation of others detention orders. There may be various factors. They may be his servants or halwahas. They may be under an obligation to the petitioner to follow him willingly or unwillingly.
9. In the circumstances we do not find any force in the said submission as well.
10. We find no fault in the detention order.
11. In the result the petition is dismissed.