SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 24

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Nagendra Nath Mondal, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 308 of 1971, D/- 13-1-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Dhingra, Advocate, amicus curiae, for Petitioner, Mr. P. K. Chatterjee, Advocate and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate for Mr. Sukumar Basu, Advocate, for Respondent.

Advocates:
G.S.CHATTERJEE, P.K.CHATTERJI, S.K.DHINGRA, Sukumar Basu

Headnote:DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATION OF DETENUE - NEW PLEA—ALLOWED TO BE RAISED IN HABEAS CORPUS PROCEEDINGS

       -held, time spent in making enquiries about situation in locality, circumstances of detention, previous history of detenue does not make it an unreasonable delay in disposing the representation by Govt.

       -see decisions in Mowu v. Superintendent Special Jail, (1971) 3 SCC 936; Nagendra Nath Mandal v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC665=(1972) 2 SCC 526; A.K. Sinha v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 2371=(1973) 2 SCC 54=1973 SCC (Cri.) 695.

Judgment

SHELAT, J. :- On May 7, 1971, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, in exercise of power conferred upon his by S. 3 (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President s Act 19 of 1970) passed an order under sub-sec. (1) of that section directing the detention of the Petitioner. The order recited that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it had become necessary to detain the petitioner "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". On that very day, the District Magistrate reported to the State Government that fact of his having passed the said order. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner was arrested on May 9, 1971 and was detained in Jail. The petitioner was furnished, as required by the Act, with the grounds for his detention at the time when his arrest was effected. On May 17, 1971, the State Government approved the said order. On the same day the State Government reported the fact of the passing of the said order and its approval to the Central Government. The petitioner made his representation which he was entitled to make by virtue of S. 8 (1). That was received by the State Government on May 27, 1971. On June 7, 1971, that is, within 30 days from the date of detention, the petitioner s case was placed before the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the Act. The State Government considered that representations but rejected it by its order dated July 1, 1971. On July 9, 1971, the Board reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the petitioner s detention. Thereupon, the State Government, by its order dated July 29, 1971, confirmed the detention order under S. 12.

2. The grounds for detention served on the petitioner stated that the order was passed in view of his acting "in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below". These particulars were :

"1. On 1-12-70 after midnight you along with others entered into the Headmaster s room of Moynaguri Higher Secondary School, Police Station Moyanguri, after breaking open the doors and set fire to books, registers, a typewriter, furniture etc, causing heavy loss to the school. After completing the operation you placed and bomb in the school premises endangering the life of the teaching staff and the students.

2. On 5-4-1971 at about 10-30 hours you along with others forcibly entered into Moyanguri Higher Secondary School, Police Station Moyanguri and set fire to the office room and the Headmater s room of the school with the help of kerosene oil causing damage to books, almirahs and other articles. While committing the arson in the above school you also threatened the teaching staff and the duftry of the school with death if they would dare to give you any resistance or divulge your name to any authority holding you responsible for the arson."

The grounds also informed the petitioner that he could make a representation to the State Government, that his case would be put up before the Board and that the Board would grant him a personal hearing, if he so desired.

3. The case of the detenu, as stated in the petition, was that he was at first arrested on suspicion on April 23, 1971 in connection with G. R. Case No. 812 of 1971, but was released on bail as there was no evidence against him. Thee was another case also being G. R. 2639 of 1970 in connection with the incident referred to in ground No. 1 set out above. The detenu, however, was not arrested in that connection. The two G. R. Cases were started long before he was arrested on May 9, 1971 under the detention order dated May 7, 1971. He denied that he was connected or associated with the incidents mentioned in the said grounds, and said that the allegations made against him therein were false, baseless motivated and vague, and that there was absolutely no material upon the basis of which the order of detention could be made. He also alleged that some




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top