N. Ibotombi Singh, J.
1. By our short order dated Feb. 22, 1983, we directed the release of the detenus, Sri Atul Bora and Sri Biraj Sarma, whose detention under the National Security Act, 1980, was challenged in these two writ petitions. We now proceed to state our reasons.
2. As one question of fact and law involved in these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is identical with that in Civil Rule (HC) Nos. 18 and 19 of 1983 reported in 1984 Cri LJ 454, learned counsel of both the parties submitted that our judgment in Civil Rule (HC) Nos. 18, and 19 of 1983 would govern these two petitions. On the submission above, we also directed the detenu Sri Atul Bora and Sri Biraj Sarma to be released forthwith on Feb. 22, 1983. We, however, give briefly facts and law.
3. The detenu, Sri Atul Bora, in Civil Rule (HC) No. 21 of 1983 attended the Executive meeting of the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad on 19.11.82 held in the Gauhati University Students Day Home under the presidentship of Sri Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, where it was decided to give a call for observance of 24 hours Assam Bandh from 0500 hours of Dec. 2, 1982 to 0500 hours of December 3, 1982. The ground recites -that he instigated the Anchalik All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad Units to resort to picketing at the houses of Government employees, so as to cause obstruction to them from attending to their lawful duties, the observance of the bandh has resulted in causing disruption to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and it has seriously affected the maintenance of public order. As a result of the bandh shops and business establishments remained closed and private transport were off the road; the banking services and the Food Corporation of India could not function properly. The rest of the allegations relate to the maintenance of public order.
4. The self same ground about the observance of 24 hours Assam Bandh from 5 a.m. of Dec. 2, 1982 to 5 a.m. of Dec. 3, 1982, mentioned above in Civil Rule (HC) No. 21 of 1983, was furnished to the detenu, Sri Biraj Sarma, in Civil Rule (HC) No. 27 of 1983.
5. It is mainfestly clear that the closure of the shops and business establishment as a result of the Assam Bandh, is common in all the four Civil Rules. We have held by our reasoned judgment announced today that the supplies and services of shops and business establishment do not come within the purview of supplies and services for the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980, and as such, the order of detention is invalid. The judgment just we have rendered, therefore, governs these two petitions.
6. In the result, we hold the order of detention impugned in both the petitions invalid. The detenus are entitled to be released forthwith. The Rule is made absolute in both the petitions. The petitions are allowed.
T.N. Singh, J.
I respectfully with the conclusions arrived at by my esteemed brother that the detention orders in these two cases are bad in law for the reason that closure of 'shops and business establishments' mentioned in the grounds do not come within the purview of Section 3(2) of the Act, not being one of the notified categories of 'supplies and services essential to the community'. But I further hold that the orders are also vitiated for the reason that the particular category of the supplies and services which were likely to be prejudicially affected was not mentioned in the orders. In our judgment just now delivered in Civil Rules (HC) Nos. 18 and 19 of 1983 I have indicated my reason why a re-consideration of our decision in Sarat Mudoi's case (1983-1 Gauhati LR 225) is not warranted and these orders fall squarely within the mischief of the rule enunciated in that case.