Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, BASI REDDI
Moturu Hanumantha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., represented by the Chief Secretary, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 06-26-65
DETENTION - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - DETENTION ORDER - SATISFACTION OF DETAINING AUTHORITY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCE TO DEPENDANTS OF DETENU - RIGHT TO - DEFENCE OF INDIA RULES, 1962 - RULE 30 (1) (B) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTS. 21, 22.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Shri Moturi 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 detention order on various grounds, including the lack of satisfaction of the detaining authority, the political nature of the detention, and the denial of family allowance for his dependants.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the detention order was valid and that the detaining authority had acted within its powers. It also held that the petitioner was not entitled to family allowance as a matter of right, but that the detaining authority could award such allowance in appropriate cases.
Issues: 1. Whether the detaining authority was satisfied that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the defence of India and civil defence, as required under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962? 2. Whether the detention order was politically motivated and, therefore, invalid? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to family allowance for his dependants as a matter of right?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the detaining authority was not required to disclose the details of the material on which it based its satisfaction, and that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority was sufficient. 2. The court held that the detention order was not politically motivated, as there was no evidence to support this allegation. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to family allowance as a matter of right, but that the detaining authority could award such allowance in appropriate cases.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is Shri Moturi 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 Mottiri Hanumantha Rao, son of Lakshmi narayana, 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 R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules. 1962 the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that the said Moturi Hanumantha Rao he detained. "on the same date, the Government also passed G. O. Ms. No. 1402 in which they stated as follows:-". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . He shall be placed in the special class. He shall also be subject, as far as may be, to the conditions laid down in the Andhra Security Prisoners Rules, 1954, notified in G. O. Ms. No. 1537, Home (Central-B) Department, dated 26-8-1954 except Rules 21, 24 and 28 thereof. "
( 2 ) 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 filed 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 affidavit filed in support of the petition, he raised various contentions.
( 3 ) THE sole respondent is the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary. The Respondent filed counter-affidavit dated 28-6-1965 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 himself. He did so with force, precision, ability and dignity.
( 4 ) WE are dealing below with the contentions actually urged before us. Under each contention, we refer to the relevant allegations in the petitioners affidavit and those in the counter affidavit, wherever necessary.
( 5 ) 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 26-8-1954 is mentioned in 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 provisions in G. O. Ms. No. 1190 regarding legal advice is contained in clause 26 which is substantially similar to the corresponding clause of G. O. Ms. No. 1537 which was referred to in G. O. Ms. No. 1402 relating to the petitioner.
( 6 ) 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, of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice. (2 ). . . . . . (3) Nothing in Clause (1) and (2) shall apply. . . . (a ). . . . . . . (b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention. "
( 7 ) 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 of the Constitution for the period during which the Proclamation of Emergency would be in force.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
