Dwarka Das Bhatia vs State Of J & K

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1956 Supreme(SC) 88

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1st November, 1956.
JAGANNADHA DAS, SINHA AND IMAM, JJ.
Dwarka Das Bhatia, Petitioner
Versus
The State of J. and K., Respondent.
Petition No. 172 of 1956.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. N. Andley, Advocate (Amicus Curiae), for Petitioner; Mr. Porus A. Mehta, Mr. T. M. Sen and Mr. R.H. Dhebar, Advocates, for Respondent.

Advocates:
PORUS A.MEHTA, R.H.Dhebar, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN

Headnote:Preventive Detention Act, (1950), Sections 3-Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011, Section 3 (1), (2)-Detention based on several grounds-Some grounds non-existent or irrelevant-Effect on validity of order.
       The reason for the detention of the applicant was the alleged
       "illicit smuggling of essential goods such as cloth, zari and mercury to Pakistan through the border, thereby affecting the economic condition of the publicin Kashmir State adversely."
       It was found that cloth and zari were not essential articles as defined i~ the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Ordinance of Jammu and Kashmir. It was contended that since two out of the three categories of the goods with reference to the smuggling of which the detention had been directed, were found not to be essential goods, the entire orders was illegal, although one of the items, viz. mercury, was an essential commodity.
       Held: (allowing the application): "Where power is vested in a statutory authority to deprive the liberty of a subject on its subjective satisfaction with reference to specified matters, if that satisfaction is stated to be based on a number of grounds or for a variety of reasons, all taken together, and if some out of them are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the very exercise of that power is bad. That is so because the matter being one for subjective satisfaction, it must be properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based. If some out of them are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the Court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the said authority would have been on the exclusion of those grounds or reasons. To uphold the validity of such an order in spite of the invalidity of some of the reasons or grounds would be to substitute the objective standards of the Court for the subjective satisfaction of the statutory authority. In applying these principles however, the Court must be satisfied that the vague or irrelevant grounds are such as, if excluded, might reasonably have affected the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority. It is not merely because some ground or reason of a comparatively unessential nature is defective that such an order based on subjective satisfaction can be held to be invalid. The Court while anxious to sefeguard the personal liberty of the individual will not lightly interfere with such orders. It is in the light of those principles that the validity of the impugned order has to be judged.
       "In this case, the order of detention is based on the ground that the petitioner was engaged in unlawful smuggling activities relating to three commodities, cloth, zari and mercury of which two are found not to be essential articles. No material is placed before us enabling us to say that the smuggling attributed to the petitioner was substantially only of mercury and that the smuggling as regards the other two commodities was of an inconsequential nature."

Judgement

JAGANNADHADAS, J. This is an application under the Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the petitioner who has under detention by virtue of an order dated the 5th September, 1956, issued by the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under sub-section (2) of section 3 taken with sub-section (1) of section 12 of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was first placed under detention by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Act on the 1st May, 1956, and that order was confirmed and continued on the 5th September, 1956, under sub- section (1) of section 12 of the Act by the Government after taking the opinion of the Advisory Board. The two orders of detention, one of the District Magistrate dated the 1st May, 1956, and the other of the Government dated the 5th September, 1956, recited that the petitioner is directed to be detained because it was necessary to make such an order,

"With a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community."

The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner on the 31st May, 1956, by the District Magistrate, Jammu, are as follows:

"1. That you carried on smuggling of essential goods to Pakistan through the Ferozpur and Amritsar border, but since the tightening of said borders you have recently shifted your smuggling activities to Ranbirsinghpura Pakistan borders in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and are carrying on p73 illicit smuggling of essential goods such as cloth, zari and mercury to Pakistan through this border (thus affecting the economic condition of the public in Kashmir State adversely).

2. That for the said purposes of smuggling of goods to Pakistan you went to village Darsoopura on 7th April, 1956, and contacted Ghulam Ahmed son of Suraj Din resident of Darsoopura,Tehsil Ranbir singhpura and one Ram Lal son of Frangi resident of Miran Sahib Tehsil Ranbirsinghpura and others who similarly are addicted to carrying on such a smuggling business and with their aid made arrangements for export of Shaffon cloth worth Rs. 2,500 to Pakistan through Ranbirsinghpura Pakistan border.

3. That on 11-4- 1956, you booked 3 bales of silk cloth through Messrs. Jaigopal Rajkumar Shegal of Amritsar to Jammu Tawi and got these bales on address of yourself, and on the same day you got one package of Tila booked through S. Kanti Lal Zarianwalla of Amritsar and got this package also addressed "To Self" for Jammu Tawi.

That after booking these packages as aforesaid you came over to Jammu and waited for their arrival and contacted Ghulam Ahmed and Ram Lal the above mentioned persons.

That on the 15th April, 1956, you tried to get the transport receipt from the Punjab National Bank but did not succeed in doing so as it was a public holiday. Meanwhile your activities leaked out and the goods were seized by the Central Customs and Excise Department of India.

2. There are other facts also but those cannot be given as I consider their disclosure would be against the public interest.

That by reading to the above activities you have been and are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the supplies and services essential to the community."

It will be seen from the above grounds that the reason for detention is the alleged

"illicit smuggling of essential goods such as cloth, zari and mercury to Pakistan through the border, thereby affecting the economic condition of the public in Kashmir State adversely."

From the particulars set out in paragraph 2 of the grounds, it appears that the cloth referred to in paragraph 1 is Shaffon cloth. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, to whom a similar application was filed by this petitioner along with a number of others similarly detained for illicit smuggling of goods

Click Here to Read the rest of this document