9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 2. Requirement of impartial tribunal for considering the representation of the detenu. 3. Necessity of a reasoned order by the State Government rejecting the representation. 4. Application of mind by the District Magistrate in issuing the detention order. 5. Status and responsibility of the District Magistrate in exercising the power of preventive detention. 6. Likelihood of the petitioner indulging in prejudicial acts in the future. 7. Application of mind by the Central Government to the case of the petitioner. 8. Disclosure of all material to the petitioner for making an effective representation. 9. Allegation of mala fide or colorable exercise of power in issuing the detention order. Summary: 1. Validity of the Detention Order: The petitioner challenged the validity of his detention under an order made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, u/s 3(1) read with u/s 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was made on 10th July 1973, citing the necessity to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. 2. Requirement of Impartial Tribunal: The petitioner contended that his representation should have been considered by an impartial tribunal constituted by the State Government. The court held that u/s 8(1) of the Act, it is the appropriate Government that is required to consider the representation of the detenu. The court emphasized the need for an unbiased mind and proper consideration by the appropriate Government. 3. Necessity of a Reasoned Order: The petitioner argued that the State Government's order rejecting his representation should be a reasoned order. The court rejected this contention, citing the decision in Haradhan Saha's case, which stated that there need not be a speaking order, but there should be real and proper consideration by the Government. 4. Application of Mind by the District Magistrate: The petitioner claimed that the District Magistrate issued the detention order mechanically without applying his mind. The court found no substance in this contention, noting that the order was in proper form and did not show any lack of application of mind. 5. Status and Responsibility of the District Magistrate: The petitioner contended that the power of preventive detention conferred on the District Magistrate was violative of Art. 19 of the Constitution. The court rejected this contention, stating that the District Magistrate is the head of the district administration and responsible for maintaining law and order, public order, and essential supplies and services. 6. Likelihood of Future Prejudicial Acts: The petitioner argued that the detention order was invalid as it did not state that he would likely indulge in prejudicial acts in the future. The court found this contention baseless, noting that the order clearly indicated the District Magistrate's satisfaction that detention was necessary to prevent the petitioner from acting in a prejudicial manner. 7. Application of Mind by the Central Government: The petitioner claimed that there was no evidence that the Central Government applied its mind to his case. The court dismissed this contention, noting that the State Government communicated the approval of the detention order to the Central Government along with relevant particulars, in compliance with u/s 3(4). 8. Disclosure of All Material: The petitioner argued that undisclosed material deprived him of an opportunity to make an effective representation. The court rejected this contention, stating that the history sheet produced showed no other material besides the two incidents in the grounds of detention that influenced the District Magistrate's decision. 9. Allegation of Mala Fide or Colorable Exercise of Power: The petitioner alleged that the detention order was made in colorable exercise of power since no charge-sheets were filed, and the criminal cases were dropped. The court found no merit in this contention, citing previous decisions that dropping a criminal case due to lack of evidence does not imply mala fide in issuing a detention order. Conclusion: All contentions raised by the petitioner were found to be without merit, and the petition was dismissed.
|
