Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
N. C. TALUKDAR, A. N. BANERJEE
METHAI LAL GORA - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, 24 PARGANAS - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Case no. 762 of 1974
Decided On : July 12, 1974
MAINTENANCE OF INTERNAL SECURITY ACT - DETENTION - GROUNDS - VAGUENESS - NON-EXISTENCE - DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER - PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS - PREJUDICE TO DETENU - INTERPRETATION OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT - RATIO DECIDENDI - BINDING PRECEDENT - ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu was detained under section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971), by order No. KM 101/74 dated 6. 3. 1974, passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas "with a view to preventing him from acting in any way prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". He was arrested on the 15th March, 1974 when the ground of detention was served on him and he was directed to be detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the ground of detention was not vague, non-existent, or did not disclose a disturbance of public order. The Court further held that the detenu was prejudiced in making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India because of the criminal investigation pending on the same ground and as such the impugned order of detention should be struck down.
Issues: 1. Whether the ground of detention was vague, non-existent, or did not disclose a disturbance of public order? 2. Whether the detenu was prejudiced in making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India because of the criminal investigation pending on the same ground?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The test for vagueness is whether the ground mentioned is so vague as to render it difficult, if not impossible, for the petitioner to make an adequate representation to the appropriate authorities. The ground of detention in this case does not disclose any such difficulty and cannot be called vague. 2. The Supreme Court in Biram Chand's case held that the detaining authority cannot take recourse to two parallel and simultaneous proceedings nor can take recourse to a ground which is the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding. The Court held that the detenu in this case has been prejudiced in making an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India because of the criminal investigation pending on the same ground and as such the impugned order of detention should be struck down.
Final Decision: The Court made the Rule Nisi absolute, held the detention of the detenu-petitioner to be illegal and invalid, and directed that the detenu-petitioner be set at liberty forthwith.
( 2 ) THE applicant before us has been detained under section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act XXVI of 1971), by order No. KM 101/74 dated 6. 3. 1974, passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas "with a view to preventing him from acting in any way prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". He was arrested on the 15th March, 1974 when the ground of detention was served on him and he was directed to be detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail. Leaving out the prefatory and descriptive portion, the ground of detention may be set out as under: -"on 27. 12. 73 at about 18. 35 hours you along with your associates, being armed with pipe-gun, bomb and sword, raided upon one Sri Hiranmoy Chowdhury, s/o. Jahar Choudhury of Sadhana Road, P. S. Dum Dum in front of the main gate of Biri and Co. on Dakindar Main Road as he protested against your anti-social activities. You also exploded bombs and broke some doors of shops. Those violent activities of yours and your associate created a havoc there and the normal flow of life was suspended there for the time being. Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". The ground of detention as well as the order detention are annexed to the petition being marked as annexure "a".
( 3 ) ON prayers made on behalf of the detenu at the time when the Rule was issued, the matter was directed to come up for hearing as an application for bail on a subsequent date upon service of the copies of the application on the respondents and it was ultimately directed on the 11th April, 1974 that the Rule will come up for hearing expeditiously. An affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on the 29th, May 1974 by Sri. Bimal Ranjan Chakravarty, District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, was filed on behalf of the respondents; and a supplementary affidavit affirmed by Sri Sheo Pujan Gore on the 10th June, 1974 and another supplementary affidavit affirmed on the 6th July, 1974 were filed on behalf of the detenu-petitioner.
( 4 ) THE submissions put forward by Mr. Dilip Dutt, Advocate (with Messrs. Kazi Mohamad Ali and Sk. Abdul Rahim, Advocates) on behalf of the detenu-petitioner have many facts, viz. , (a) that the ground served on the detenu has no nexus to the object of detention and is irrelevant; (b) that it is vague prejudicing the detenu from making an effective representation; (c) that it is non-existent; (d) that it does not disclose a disturbance of public order and (e) that the ground furnished by the detaining authority is also the subject-matter of a pending criminal case, resulting in parallel proceedings and denying thereby any opportunity to the detenu to make an effective representation under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India. Mr. Promode Ranjan Roy, Junior Government Advocate (with Dr. D. K. Sengupta, Advocate) appearing on behalf of the respondents, joined issue. He contended, inter alia, that the ground served has nexus to the object of the detention and is not in any way irrelevant or vague. He further that the ground is not non-existent and bring to light a disturbance of public order. In reply to the fifth and last submission of Mr. Dutta, he submitted that there are, in fact, no parallel proceedings, affecting an effective representation on the part of the detenu under Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the ground furnished by the detai
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
