1968 (8) TMI 187 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention under the Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950)challenged - Held that - As regards mala fides and collateral purpose alleged to be the real reason, the averment is that the detention was ordered to prevent the detenus from actively campaigning for the Panchayat elections that were to take place on the 19th and 20th February, 1968. This has been denied and looking to the circumstances of this area which are notorious there is no doubt in our minds that the affidavit of the District Magistrate is reliable. What we have to satisfy ourselves about is the satisfaction of the authority and the absence of mala fides and whether all the opportunities of making representation were given. There were enough instances cited of the conduct on which detention was ordered for the petitioner to make an effective representation. The situation in this area was already bad and the later activities would not make it any better. We do not think that the detention suffers from any defect. The petition will be dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention due to delayed report submission by the District Magistrate under Section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act.
2. Legality of detention due to non-communication of the State Government's approval to the detainees.
3. Legality of detention due to delay in reporting to the Central Government.
4. Vagueness of grounds of detention and allegations of mala fide and collateral purpose.
5. Individual objections in specific writ petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of detention due to delayed report submission by the District Magistrate under Section 3(3) of the Preventive Detention Act:
The petitioners argued that the detention was illegal as the District Magistrate did not submit the report "forthwith" as required by Section 3(3) of the Act. The court examined the meaning of "forthwith" and concluded that it allows for a reasonable time for action. The delay of four days from the order of detention and two days from the date of arrest was explained by the District Magistrate due to holidays and urgent administrative duties. The court found this explanation sufficient and held that the delay did not render the detention illegal.

2. Legality of detention due to non-communication of the State Government's approval to the detainees:
The petitioners contended that the detention was illegal as the State Government's approval under Section 3(3) was not communicated to them. The court observed that there is no provision in the Act requiring such communication. It held that the approval is an administrative act and does not need to be communicated to the detainees. The court referenced previous judgments and concluded that the non-communication did not affect the legality of the detention.

3. Legality of detention due to delay in reporting to the Central Government:
The petitioners argued that the State Government delayed reporting the detention to the Central Government. The court noted that the State Government communicated the decision on February 22, after receiving the District Magistrate's report on February 13 and approving the action on February 19. The court found the delay of three days reasonable and covered by the expression "as early as may be." It rejected the contention that the detention was illegal due to this delay.

4. Vagueness of grounds of detention and allegations of mala fide and collateral purpose:
The petitioners claimed that the grounds of detention were vague and the detention was for a collateral purpose and mala fide. The court examined the grounds provided, such as instigating villagers to damage forest plantations and preventing paddy procurement, and found them specific enough to allow the detainees to make representations. The court rejected the allegations of mala fide, finding the District Magistrate's affidavit reliable and the circumstances justifying the detention.

5. Individual objections in specific writ petitions:

- Writ Petition 89 of 1968: No special objections beyond the common issues. Petition dismissed.
- Writ Petition 90 of 1968: No special grounds urged. Petition dismissed.
- Writ Petition 91 of 1968: Objection regarding mistaken identity due to a discrepancy in the father's name was rejected. Discrepancy in dates of meetings and resulting activities was explained as evidence of the petitioner's conduct. Petition dismissed.
- Writ Petition 92 of 1968: Similar objections as in other petitions. Additional complaint about instigating strikes without details was distinguished from black marketing cases. Petition dismissed.
- Writ Petition 94 of 1968: Objection regarding the order and grounds being in English, while the petitioner knew only Bengali and Tripuri, was raised late and not entertained. Petition dismissed.

Conclusion:
All petitions were dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented regarding the legality of detention, vagueness of grounds, allegations of mala fide, and individual objections.

← Previous Next →