Manilal Chatterjee Alias Sudip vs State Of W. B.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

1972 Supreme(SC) 322

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA, AND H.R. KHANNA, JJ.
Manilal Chatterjee alias Sudip, Petitioner
Versus
State of W.B., Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 40 of 1972, D/- 17-7-1972.

Important Points

A writ of habeas corpus will not be granted if the detention order is legally sound and all procedural requirements under the relevant preventive detention law have been strictly followed.

Subject

Constitutional Law - Preventive Detention

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.32

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 - Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) - Writ of habeas corpus - Detention order - Validity of detention - Where it is found that all consequential steps required under the Act were duly taken within the prescribed periods and no legal infirmity is pointed out in the impugned order or the steps taken by the Government, there is no justifiable reason for interfering with the detention.

Facts of the case:
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed challenging a detention order passed under a state preventive detention act. The detenu was arrested and served with the grounds of detention. The state government submitted that all procedural requirements and consequential steps mandated by the Act were completed within the stipulated timeframes. The counsel for the petitioner conceded that there were no legal grounds to challenge the validity of the order.

Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no legal infirmity in the detention order or the subsequent actions taken by the government.

Issues: Whether the detention order was legally sustainable or if there were any procedural lapses justifying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any legal infirmity in the detention order or the failure to follow prescribed procedural steps under the relevant preventive detention legislation, the court will not interfere with the detention.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judgment

ORDER :- This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus. The impugned order of detention was passed in this case on July 19, 1971 by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Sub-section 1 read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. In pursuance of that order the detenu was arrested on July 21, 1971 and the grounds of detention were served on him. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed by the State Government that all the consequential steps required under the Act were duly taken within the prescribed periods. It was, therefore, not possible for Mr. D. Goburdhan, counsel for the petitioner, appearing amicus curiae, to point out any legal infirmity either in the impugned order or the consequential steps taken by the Government thereafter. Mr. Goburdhan, on the contrary, frankly conceded before us that in these circumstances it was not possible for him to attack the validity of the order upon any legal ground. That being so it is obvious that there is no justifiable reason for interfering with that order or the detention of the petitioner hereunder. In any event the period of the petitioner s detention will be over on July 20, 1972 and the State Government will then be bound to release him from the detention. The petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1973 SC 1280