Back
1975 Supreme(SC) 2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.K. MATHEW AND P.N. BHAGWATI, JJ.
Samar Ali Miyan, Petitioner
Versus
The State of W.B., Respondent
Writ Petn.. No. 307 of 1974, D/-9-1-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. O. P. Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae, for Petitioner;. M/s. D. N Mukherjee and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for Respondent.
D.N.MUKHERJI, G.S.CHATTERJEE, O.P.Sharma
Headnote:
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Section 3 (1) (2) - Petitioner Challenges Order - Order of Detention - Petitioner challenges an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Darjeeling under sub-section (1) read with subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.We asked Mr. D. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner amicus curiae as to what were the grounds on which order of detention was being challenged but he was unable to formulate any grounds – Held, He frankly, and in our opinion rightly, conceded that order of detention did not appear to suffer from any vice and it was not possible for him to point out any defect in the order of detention - Affidavit in reply filed by District Magistrate showed that formalities required by the provisions of the Act had been complied with within the prescribed time limits and the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner were clear and specific and contained the most detailed particulars in regard to the two incidents there set out and they had clear nexus with the object of detention, namely, maintenance of public order - Petition dismissed.
Judgment
BHAGWATI, JJ.:- The petitioner challenges an order of detention dated 8 th December, 1973 made by the District Magistrate, Darjeeling under sub-section (1) read with subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.We asked Mr. D. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner amicus curiae as to what were the grounds on which the order of detention was being challenged but he was unable to formulate any grounds. He frankly, and in our opinion rightly, conceded that the order of detention did not appear to suffer from any vice and it was not possible for him to point out any defect in the order of detention. The affidavit in reply filed by the District Magistrate showed that the formalities required by the provisions of the Act had been complied with within the prescribed time limits and the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner were clear and specific and contained the most detailed particulars in regard to the two incidents there set out and they had clear nexus with the object of detention, namely, maintenance of public order.
2. We therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge the rule.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1975 SC 1631
