Dina Bandhu Das Alias Dinu vs The State Of West Bengal
- SCC(1972) 4 SCC 139
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a detainee under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 files a representation before the State Government but the State Government's counter-affidavit specifically states that no such representation was received, the detainee's claim that the representation was not considered or disposed of cannot succeed in the absence of any evidence that the representation was actually delivered to or received by the Government.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. The petitioner challenges the validity of a detention order and prays for the issue of writ or order in the nature of habeas corpus and for releasing him from custody.
2. The petitioner was arrested on August 22, 1971, in pursuance of order dated August 14, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly, West Bengal, under the provisions of Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (No. 26 of 1971). The said order together with the ground of detention was served on him on the same day. The District Magistrate duly reported to the State Government about the passing of the order of detention on August 18, 1971. The State Government considered the report and approved it on August 25, 1971 under Section 3(3) of the Act and on the same day the State Government submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act together with the grounds of detention and other particulars. On September 20, 1971, the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, after consideration of the materials placed before it, submitted its report to the State Government on October 27, 1971, stating that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. The State Government, in the exercise of its power under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act confirmed the order of detention on November 4, 1971, and it was communicated to the petitioner by its Memo dated November 6, 1971.
3. The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that a representation was filed by the petitioner before the State Government but that the representation was not considered or disposed of by the Government. In para 16 of the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State Government it is specifically stated that no representation was received by the State Government. There was, therefore, no question of considering it. The procedure enjoined by the Act has been strictly complied with. I dismiss the petition.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free