The inclusion of an irrelevant ground for detention in a detention order does not invalidate the order if the detenu is not prejudiced by the inclusion of the irrelevant ground.

Headnote:
DETENTION ORDER - GROUNDS - IRRELEVANT GROUND - EFFECT - ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 - SEC. 7 - PREVENTION OF BLACKMARKETING AND MAINTENANCE OF SUPPLIES OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1980 - SEC. 3 - A. P. PADDY (RESTRICTION ON MOVEMENT) ORDER, 1983 - CL. 3 - A. P. RICE PROCUREMENT (LEVY) ORDER, 1984 - CL. 7.
Fact of the Case:

The detenu was detained under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, for allegedly transporting paddy from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra without a permit, in violation of Clause 3 of the A. P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1983, and Clause 7 of the A. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984. The detenu challenged the detention order on the ground that the alleged violation of Clause 7 of the Rice Order was non-existent and irrelevant, and therefore the detention order was invalid.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the detention order was valid and the alleged violation of Clause 7 of the Rice Order was not a separate ground for detention but merely an additional provision of law stated to have been violated by the detenu. The Court further held that the detenu was not prejudiced by the mention of the additional provision of law in the detention order and that there was no long or unexplained delay in the passing of the detention order.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was invalid due to the inclusion of an irrelevant ground for detention. 2. Whether the detenu was prejudiced by the mention of the additional provision of law in the detention order. 3. Whether there was a long or unexplained delay in the passing of the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the detention order was not invalid due to the inclusion of an irrelevant ground for detention. The Court reasoned that the number of grounds on which a detention order is based is determined by the number of allegations of facts that led to the passing of the order, not by the number of provisions of law stated to have been violated by the acts attributed to the detenu. In this case, there was only one ground for detention, namely, the detenu's alleged transportation of paddy without a permit, which violated Clause 3 of the Paddy Order. The mention of Clause 7 of the Rice Order in the detention order did not create a separate ground for detention. 2. The Court held that the detenu was not prejudiced by the mention of the additional provision of law in the detention order. The Court reasoned that the detenu was not prevented from making an effective representation on account of the fact that the detention order stated that his activity also fell within the mischief of Clause 7 of the Rice Order. 3. The Court held that there was no long or unexplained delay in the passing of the detention order. The Court reasoned that there was nothing on record to show that the detaining authority had any information regarding the detenu's alleged activities prior to the date on which the proposal for action was received from the Additional Superintendent of Police, and that the delay between the receipt of the proposal and the passing of the detention order was not long or unexplained.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the detention order.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by one smt. Kalavathi for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus for setting at liberty her husband, Shivasari Gangadhar (hereinafter referred to as the detenu ) who is undergoing detention pursuant to the order dated 6-6-1986 passed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980, by the second respondent, the district Magistrate (District Collector), Adilabad. The gravemen of the charge against the-detenu is that he is the registered owner of lorry bearing no. ATJ 3041, and that he had been transporting paddy from Adilabad district in this State to Dharmabad District in Maharashtra State by making use of that lorry, without any permit in that behalf, which he amounted to violation of clause 3 of the A. P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In. the operative portion of the grounds it is stated as follows :"you, thus contravened the provisions of (a) Cl. 3 of A. P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1983 (b) Cl. 7 of A. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 r/w. Section 7 of the Essential Commodities act 1955,"when the matter came up before the Division Bench earlier, it was contended that though the facts alleged would amount to contravention of the provisions of Clause 3 of A. P. Paddy (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1983 (for short the paddy order ), they would not amount to a contravention of clause 7 of a. P. Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short, the Rice Order ; and, therefore, one of the grounds alleged and relied on by the detaining authority was non-existent and irrelevant ; and, therefore, the detention order was illegal and was bound to be set aside. To press this point, the counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in dwaraka Prasad vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 SC, 134. wherein it was held that even if one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid and it would not avail the detaining authority to contend that the other grounds or reasons were good and did not suffer from any such infirmity, because it could never be predicated as to whether the detention order would have been made at all even in the absence of nonexistent or irrelevant grounds.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the respondents, the learned Advocate General had drawn the attention of the Division Bench (to a recent Division Bench ruling of this Court (which appears to have been so far not reported) in WP. No. 13033 and 13037/85 dated 11-12-1985, where in it was held:"merely because a repealed Order is mentioned in the order of detention, it cannot be said that the order of detention is vitiated or becomes void. No decision has been brought to our notice in support of the said proposition. We also do not think that the addition of a repealed Order has, in any manner, disabled the detenu from making a representation or to put forward his case. "

( 3 ) IN view of the fact that there appeared to be an apparent conflict between the decision of the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the decision of our Division Bench, on the other, and considering the importance of the question of law involved, the Division Bench has referred the matter to a full Bench ; and thus it is before us now.

( 4 ) THE short facts are :

( 5 ) THE second respondent received a letter dated 13-5-1986 from the additional Superintendent of police, Vigilance Cell, Civil Supplies Department, nizamabad, containing a proposal that the detenue, who was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community by smuggling paddy from Andhra Pradesh to Maharastra, had to be detained in order to prevent him from carrying On such activities. The second respondent considered the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1986 Supreme(AP) 478

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : C.V.RAMULU, K.BHASKARAN, LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDYKALAVATHI - AppellantVersusState OF A.P., HOME DEPARTMENT AT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD - RespondentDecided On : 11-20-86

The inclusion of an irrelevant ground for detention in a detention order does not invalidate the order if the detenu is not prejudiced by the inclusion of the irrelevant ground.

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.V.RAMULU, K.BHASKARAN, LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY
KALAVATHI - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., HOME DEPARTMENT AT SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 11-20-86