1975 (7) TMI 154 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reference to the Advisory Board.
2. Relevance of grounds for detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
3. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 3(1) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reference to the Advisory Board:
The petitioner contended that the reference to the Advisory Board was made on December 20, 1974, beyond the statutory period, violating Section 10 of the Act. However, the Government produced materials showing that the reference was actually made on November 22, 1974. The original file and a letter from the Registrar dated January 7, 1975, confirmed this date. Consequently, the petitioner's counsel did not press this point further. The Court expressed strong disapproval of the incorrect counter-affidavit filed by the then District Magistrate, Mr. S. K. D. Mathur, and urged the Government to avoid such errors in the future.

2. Relevance of Grounds for Detention:
The petitioner was detained for allegedly hoarding light diesel oil without a proper license, which was claimed to be prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies. The grounds (1)(a) & (b) of the detention order detailed inspections on October 17, 1974, and November 5, 1974, where large quantities of light diesel oil were found without a valid license. The Court noted that there was no allegation that the petitioner disrupted the distribution or sale of the oil, nor refused to sell it to those in need. The Court found no correlation between the petitioner's actions and the disruption of essential supplies, deeming grounds (1)(a) & (b) irrelevant.

Ground No. (2) alleged fictitious sales of light diesel oil without issuing proper receipts, violating the U.P. Essential Commodities (Price Display and Control of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1971. The petitioner admitted the violation but attributed it to a clerical error. The Court found this explanation unconvincing, noting that the petitioner could not have consumed such large quantities of oil personally. However, since ground No. (1) was irrelevant, the Court could not determine the extent to which it influenced the detaining authority's satisfaction, rendering the entire detention order invalid.

3. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority:
The Court found contradictions in the affidavits regarding who passed the detention order and who was satisfied with the grounds. Mr. S. K. D. Mathur claimed he passed the order and was satisfied with the grounds, while Mr. R. C. Arora served the grounds. However, Mr. Mathur later suggested that both he and Mr. Arora were the detaining authorities. This inconsistency indicated a lack of due care and proper exercise of jurisdiction, further invalidating the detention order.

4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 3(1) of the Act:
Section 3(1) requires that the order of detention be made by the specified authority, duly signed, and based on contemporaneous grounds. The contradictory affidavits made it unclear who actually made and was satisfied with the order. The Court emphasized that the order and grounds must be signed by the authority concerned, and the grounds must exist contemporaneously with the order. The failure to meet these requirements constituted a serious procedural infirmity, violating Section 3 of the Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated November 8, 1974, due to the irrelevance of grounds (1)(a) & (b), the lack of clear subjective satisfaction by the detaining authority, and procedural violations under Section 3(1) of the Act. The petitioner was ordered to be released forthwith.