Back
1965 Supreme(AP) 130
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI
MOTURU HANUAIANTHA RAO - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HYDERABAD - Respondent
Decided On : 06-26-65
A detenu has no vested right to demand the payment of allowance to his family and the Government is not legally obligated to provide such allowance.
Headnote:
DETENTION - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - DETENTION ORDER - VALIDITY - SATISFACTION OF DETAINING AUTHORITY - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE TO DEPENDENTS OF DETENU - RIGHT TO - SECTION 44 OF THE DEFENCE OF INDIA ACT, 1962 - RULE 30 OF THE DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES, 1962 - G. O. MS. NO. 1190 DATED 28-10-1964.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Shri Motuni Hanumantha Rao, was detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, on the ground that his activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence. He challenged the validity of the detention order and sought a direction for his release and for the provision of family maintenance allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detention order was valid and that the petitioner was not entitled to family maintenance allowance. The court found that the detaining authority had acted in accordance with the law and that there was no evidence to suggest that the order was mala fide or arbitrary. The court also held that the petitioner had no vested right to demand the payment of allowance to his family and that the Government was not legally obligated to provide such allowance.
Issues: 1. Whether the detention order was valid? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to family maintenance allowance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the detention order was valid because: (a) The detaining authority had acted in accordance with the law and there was no evidence to suggest that the order was mala fide or arbitrary. (b) The petitioner was detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, which is a law providing for preventive detention. (c) The Proclamation of Emergency and the Presidential Order suspending the rights conferred by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution were in force and precluded the petitioner from challenging the validity of the detention order. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to family maintenance allowance because: (a) The petitioner had no vested right to demand the payment of allowance to his family. (b) The Government was not legally obligated to provide such allowance. (c) Section 44 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, which deals with interference with ordinary avocations of life and enjoyment of property, does not impose a duty on the detaining authority to provide maintenance to the dependents of a detenu.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is Shri Motuni Hanumantha Rao. The Government of Andhra Pradesh passed G. O. Ms. No. 1401, dated 28-12-1964 as follows :"whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh are satisfied with respect to the person known as Sree Moturi Hanumantha Rao, son of Lakshmina. ayana, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence and the efficient conduct of military operations, it is necessary to make the following order :- now. therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, the Government of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the said Moturi Hanumantha Rao be detained. "on the same date, the Government also passed G. O. Ms. No. 1402 in which they stated, as follows :-"he shall bo placed in the "special class". He shall also be subject, as far as may be, to the conditions laid down in the Andhta Security Prisoner s rules, 1954, notified in G. O. Ms. No. 1537, Home (Central-B) department, dated 26-8-1954 except rules 21, 24 and 2d thereof. "the petitioner filed a petition dated 10-2-1965 for family allowance. The government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order dated 12-4-1965 rejecting that petition. The petitioner tiled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for directions, orders or writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus or any other writ (1) for his release and (2) for providing for family maintenance allowance since the date of his arrest and detention, in his aftidavit filed in support of the petition, he raised various contentions.
( 2 ) THE sole respondent is the Government, of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief secretary. The respondent tiled counter-affidavit dated 20-6.-1965 signed by the Chief Secretary denying the various allegations in the petition. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit dated 9-8-1965. The petitioner was not represented by an Advocate. He chose to argue his case himselt. He did so with force, precision, ability and dignity. We are dealing below with the contentions actually urged before us. Under each contention, we refer to the relevant allegations in the petitioner s aitidavit and those in the counter-affidavit, wherever necessary.
( 3 ) THE petitioner has contended that the action of the Government in passing g. O. Ms No, 1402 wherein he was denied the right to legal advice is illegal. Though G. O. Ms. No. 1537 dated 26-8-1964 is mentioned iu G. O. Ms no. 1402, that G. O. Ms. No. 1537 had been superseded by G. O. Ms. No. 1190 dated 28-10-1964. Both sides are agreed that G. O. Ms. No. 1190 applies to the case and they relied on various provisions in that G. O. The provision, in g. O. Ms No. 1190 regarding legal advice is contained in Clause 26 which is substantially similar to the corresponding clause ot G. O. Ms. No. 1537 which was referred to in G. O. Ms. No. 1402 relating to the petitioner. Article 22 of the Constitution runs as follows :-" (1 ). No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, or the grounds tor such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) Nothing in Clauses (1) and (2) shall apply. . . . . . . . . (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. "the petitioner is detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules which is law providing for preventive detention, There is a Proclamation by the President dated 26-10-1962 declaring that a grave emergency existed. On 3-11-1962. the President issued an Order under Article 359 (1) of the Constitution suspending the rights conferred by Articles 21 and 22 ot th
