Sri Ramayan Harijan vs State Of West Bengal
- SCC(1973) 3 SCC 315
- AIRAIR 1973 SC 758
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where a detenu has been arrested and prosecuted in connection with certain incidents, the subsequent passage of a detention order based on those same incidents does not render the detention order mala fide merely because the criminal prosecution was later discharged due to unwilling witnesses, provided the detention order was passed in anticipation of such discharge. 2. Under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971, the State Government has the authority to consider and decide upon representations made by a detenu against the detention order, notwithstanding the subsequent review by the Advisory Board, as Section 8(1) mandates communication of grounds to afford the detenu an opportunity to make representation to the appropriate Government. 3. A detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act passed to prevent acts prejudicial to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community is valid where the detenu's conduct involves disruption of essential services, even if the specific commodity involved (such as brass rods) is not itself classified as essential, provided the conduct causes disruption to the maintenance of services essential to the community.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. By an order dated. 29th October 1971 the District Magistrate, 24-Paraganas, West Bengal, directed that the petitioner be detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971, with a view to preventing him from acting in. any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The petitioner was arrested on 4th November 1971 and the grounds of detention were furnished to him on the same date. The representation made by the petitioner was received by the Government on 19th November, 1971 and was rejected on 1st December 1971. On the decision, of the Advisory Board dated 13th January 1672 the detention order was confirmed by the Government on 19th January, 1972. The correctness of the detention order is challenged by the petitioner by this petition 'under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. It is contended that the petitioner was in jail on 29th October 1971 when the detention order was passed, that he was then being prosecuted in respect of the same incidents for which the order of detention was passed and therefore the detention is mala fide. In support of this contention our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel to a, decision in Maledath Bharathan Malyali v. The Commr. of Police . This decision, in our opinion, has no application because the detention order was passed in that case while the case was still under investigation. The affidavit filed by Sub-Inspector Manoranjan Ghosal in our case shows. that the petitioner was caught red-handed and was arrested on 20th October 1971 and that he was immediately put up before a Magistrate for charges under Sections 379, 411 and 461 of the Indian Penal Code. The affidavit further shows that witnesses were unwilling to come forward in that case and therefore it was considered expedient not to proceed with the trial. The Investigating Officer therefore requested the learned Magistrate to discharge the petitioner and It was in anticipation ox the order of discharge that the present order of detention was passed on 29th October 1971. In Mohd. Salim Khan v. Shri C.C. Bose , Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal it was held by tills Court that the mere fact that the detenu was discharged in a criminal case does not mean that a valid order of detention could not be passed against him in connection with those very incidents or that such an order can be characterised as mala fide.
3. There is no substance in the submission that the State Government had no right to consider the representation made by the petitioner as that right exclusively belongs to the Advisory Board. The detention order was passed under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 and Section 8(1) thereof provides that the detaining authority shall, as soon as may be, communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the detention order has been made so as to afford him the earliest opportunity to make a representation to the appropriate Government. It would be pointless to give to the detenu the right to make a representation to the Government unless the Government is entitled to consider that representation. It is also difficult to understand how the petitioner has been prejudiced by reason of the fact that his representation was considered by the State Government.
4. One of the grounds on which the petitioner was detained is that he attacked a goods wagon loaded with brass rods valued, at Rs. 50,000/-, with the object of committing theft. It is urged that brass rods are not an essential commodity, and therefore the order of detention could not have been passed as it purports to have been passed for the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. We cannot accept this submission because apart from the question whether brass rods are an essential commodity, the detention order has been passed for maintenance of supplies as well as services essential to the community. Breaking open goods-wagons is bound to cause disruption in the maintenance of services essential to the community.
5. In the result the petition is dismissed.
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