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) 91

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, H.R. KHANNA AND K.K. MATHEW, JJ
Keshab Roy, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 340 of 1971, D/- 3-2-1972.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V.J. Francis, Advocate Amicus Curiae, for Petitioner Mr. P. K. Chakravarti, Advocate, and Mr. G. S. Chatterjee, Advocate for Messrs Sukumar Basu and Co, for Respondent.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 - Section 3 - Entered by Breaking Door - Set Fire to Postal Records and Papers - Set Fire to Two Class Rooms - Causing Damage to Furniture and Class Room - It has been argued that two incidents mentioned above did not show that petitioner had acted in any manner prejudicial to security of State or maintenance of public order - This contention in our opinion is not well founded incident referred to in grounds of detention relates to setting fire to postal records and papers while incident of pertains to setting fire to two class rooms of a school - It has also been mentioned that above two incidents created panic and terror in locality aforesaid allegations would bring case of petitioner within purview of clause - Held, It has next been argued that there was no proximity of time between incidents referred to in grounds of detention and order of detention - This contention too in our opinion is not well founded because order of detention was made within about two and a half months of second incident second incident showed a propensity on part of petitioner to set fire to Government property or educational institutions - It cannot be said that order of detention was made after such a length of time of incidents that connection between incidents and order was remote and not proximate - There is how ever no cogent material on record to indicate such a bias and we find ourselves unable to accede to contention advanced on behalf of petitioner in this respect - Petition dismissed.

Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- The order of detention impugned in this petition is in identical terms as the one in Writ Petition 322 of 1971 (Ananta Mukhi Ananta Hari v. The State of West Bengal.) For the reasons given in the judgement in that petition the impugned order must be held to be bad. Consequently, the Respondent State is directed to release the petitioner and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. KHANNA, J.: (For himself and on behalf of MATHEW, J.). This is a petition through jail under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by Keshab Roy who has been ordered to be detained under Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President s Act No. 19 of 1970), hereinafter referred to as the Act.

3. The order of detention which was made against the petitioner reads as under. "No. 2925-C

ORDER

Dated Suri, the 16-7-1971.

Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Keshab Roy, son of Shri Kalipada Roy of Dubrajpur (Lalbazar), P.S. Dubrajpur, District Birbhum, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President s Act No. 19 of 1970), make this order directing that the said Shri Keshab Roy be detained.

Given under my hand and seal of office.

Sd/-M. Gupta.

19-7-1971.

District Magistrate, Birbhum,"

4. The same day the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, that is, July 16, 1971 he sent a report about the making of the order of the State Government. The order of detention and the grounds of detention were served upon the petitioner on July 18, 1971. The State Government approved the order of detention on July 26, 1971 and on the same day reported the matter to the Central Government. Representation dated July 28, 1971 of the petitioner was received by the State Government and was rejected on August 16, 1971. The case of the petitioner was referred to the Advisory Board on August 16, 1971. The Advisory Board made a report on September 16, 1971 to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The order of detention was confirmed on October 16, 1971.

5. The petition has been resisted by the respondent and the affidavit of Shri Chandi Charan Bose, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special Department, Government of West Bengal has been filed in opposition to the petition.

Mr. Francis, who has argued the case (as?) amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, has invited our attention to the grounds of detention which were served upon the petitioner and read as under:

"(1) On 4-4-1971 at about 23-30 hours you along with others forcibly entered by breaking door into the office room of Niramoy (Giridanga) Sub-Post Office, P. S. Dubraipur, and set fire to postal records and papers besides other things worth Rs. 200.00 causing extensive damage. This created panic and terror in the locality.

(2) On 1-5-1971 at about 00.15 hours, you along with others set fire to two class rooms of Balijuri Junior High School, P. S. Dubrajpur causing damage to furniture and class room worth Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand). This created serious panic and terror in the locality."

It has been argued by Mr. Francis that the two incidents mentioned above did not show that the petitioner had acted in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. This contention, in our opinion, is not well founded. The incident of April 4, 1971 referred to in the grounds of detention relates to setting fire to postal records and papers, while the incident of May 1, 1971 pertains to setting fire to two class rooms of a school. It has also been mentioned that the above two incidents created panic and terror in the locality. The aforesaid allegations wo








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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