Sitala Prasad Shaw v. the State of West Bengal

Judgment

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 118 of 1974. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. R. L. Kohli, for the: petitioner . . Dilip Sinhlz and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J.-The petitioner was detained by an order daied August 23, 1973 passed by the J?istrict Magistrate, Hc·wrah, u~der the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The prder recites that the petitioner was detained v.ith a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The particulars"ofthe ground of detention refer to a solitary incident dated March 18, 1973. It is aJleged that at about 2 p.m. on that date, the.. petitioner and his associates being armed with ~"'.ords, Ballams and Lathis attacked a group of Bengalees .at RaJnar~y~n. Roy Choudhury Ghat Road, Shibpur, Howrah cau.<mg sever~ 1DJUT1es to them.

It is further stated that this conduct Jed to a reign of terror SUPREME COURT REPQRTS in the locality as a result of which the sh6ps .and the doors. of th~ road side houses ,vere closed, people of the locality fled away mpamc and the people were generally afraid of coming out of their houses for fear of being assaulted. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pe1itioner has raiied two points for our consideration in this petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The part;culars furnished to the petitioner say that the petitioner was detained on the ground: "you have been acting" in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The argument is that the order is founded on a single incident and therefore, the use of language showing that the culpable conduct on the part of the petitioner extended over an appreciably long period of time was wholly inappropriate.

Inferentially; it is urged, the detaining authority had material before it showing that the petitioner was indulging in a criminal course of conduct for a long pericd of time and as such 1 material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he .had no opportunity to meet it, leading thereby tc the contr:iventicn of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. w~: are not impressed by this submission. It is true that in matters involving the liberty of the subject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in the discharge of their functions. llut that does not justify an unrealistic dissection of detention orders. The counter-affidavit fi,led on behalfcf the State Gc:.vt. shows that no other material was taken into account by the drtaining authority wh'ile passing the ()rder of detention. Therefore, the use of the expression, "you have been acting" though untortunate does not support the submission that the order of detention is founded on undisclosed material.

The petitioner was exprersly appriEed that he had been acting in a manner prejudic:al to the main1enance of public order "as evidenced by the particulars;" furnished to him. The pa.rticulars refer only to a single incident. The seco1~d ground of attack on the detention order is that when the State Government approved the detention on August 30, 1973 it passed an order approving a detention order dated "25-8-73". As the impugned order of detention is dated August 23, 1973 it is urged that while approving the detention of the petitioner, the Sta1e Government had before it some other order of detention. There is no substance in this contention. The order of approval contains but a tyoographical error. This is ckar from the order pas~ed by the State "t. on November 8, 1973 c:onfirming the order of detention after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. The order of confirmation refers to the or~e~ of detention dated August 23, 1973.

It must also be stated that as 111 the order of confirmation so in the order of approval, an express roferenc:e is made to the detention order bearing No. 1818•C. The order of detention passed against the petitioner on August 23, 1973 bears that very number which shows lhat the reference to an order dat1:d "25-8-73" in the order of approval is a typographical mistake. In the result, we confirm the order of detention and discharge the rule in this petition. P.FLP. Petition dismissed.