Back
1973 Supreme(SC) 428
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.R. KHANNA AND M.H. BEG, JJ.
Sk. Ibrahim, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B. and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 1641 of 1973, D/- 19-12-1973.
Headnote:
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 3 (2), (1) and 3(1)(a)(iii) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 491 - Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 32 - Maintenance of Supplies and Services - Order of Detention - Whether detention order contained blanks when it was signed by District Magistrate – Held, Mere fact that detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein necessary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that particulars in ink were filled in subsequent to signing of detention order - Facts stated in grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise petitioner of precise activities on account of which detention order had been made - It cannot in circumstances be said that petitioner was in any way handicapped in making an effective representation - Fact that names of associates of petitioner were not mentioned in grounds of detention would not go to show that they suffered from infirmity of vagueness - Courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to detenu precise activity on account of which he is being detained - Detenu is thus prevented from making an effective representation which he might possibly have made, if he had been apprised of objectionable activity which led to his detention - Where, however, as in present case requisite details of activity for which order for detention was made, have been conveyed to detenu and he is not shown to have been prejudiced or handicapped in making an effective representation, argument about vagueness of grounds of detention must plainly be held to be not tenable - Petition dismissed.
Judgment
KHANNA, J. :- The District Magistrate of Hooghly passed an order on May, 9, 1973 under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971) for the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. In pursuance of the detention order, the petitioner was arrested on May, 14, 1973 and was served with the order of detention as also the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. Report about the making of the detention order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government and the said Government approved the detention order on May, 18, 1973. The case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board by the State Government on June 5, 1973. The petitioner sent a representation against his detention and the same was received by the State Government on June 2, 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after considering the representation and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the State Government on July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. Only July 30, 1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner in the meantime filed petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta high Court. The said petition was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and was dismissed as per judgment dated July 4, 1973. The present petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution was thereafter sent by the petitioner from jail on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
3. The petition has been resisted by the State of West Bengal and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department has been filed in opposition to the petition. Arguments have been addressed before us by Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh for the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar has assailed the detention of the petitioner on three grounds.
4. It has been argued in the first instance by Mr. Majumdar that there was delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner and such delay vitiates the detention. This contention, in our opinion, is without any force. It would appear from the affidavit field by Shri Sukumar Sen that the representation sent by the petitioner was received by the State Government in its Home Department on June 2, 1973 after it had been forwarded by the superintendent Hooghly Jail. The said representation was then considered and was rejected by the State Government on June 4, 1973. It cannot, in our opinion, be said that there was any delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by the State Government. It has been urged that the representation was sent by him from jail on May 25, 1973 and that a period of 10 days elapsed from the date of the submission of the representation and its actual disposal. The above period cannot also be said to be so inordinately long as might affect the validity of the detention.
5. It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the detention order contained blanks which were filled in subsequent to the signing of that order by the District Magistrate. This allegation has been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and, in our opinion, there is no cogent ground to accept the correctness of the allegation. The petitioner was admittedly not present at the time the detention order was signed by the District Magistrate and, as such, he cannot be in a position to state whether the detention order contained blanks when it was signed by the District Magistrate. The mere fact that the detention order is
