9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (C) 89 OF 1968 - - - Dated:- 6-8-1968 - M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.M. SHELAT, VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA, G.K. MITTER AND C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM, JJ. JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 89 to 92 and 94 of 1968. These are five writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by persons detained under the Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950) by virtue of orders passed by the District Magistrate Tripura on February 2, 1968. These detenus (and another since released) were arrested on February 11, 1968. State Government was informed of the fact of deten sup. CI/68--5 tion on February 13, and the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenus on February 15. State Government gave the approval on February 19 and telegraphically communicated to the Central Government the fact of the detention on February 22 under section 3(4). On March 11, the Advisory Board considered the cases. The present petitions were filed on March 12, 1968. The Advisory Board made its report to the State Government under section 10 of the Act on April 17, 1968. On April 26, 1968, the State Government made the order detaining the petitioners for a period of one year. This detention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;as soon as may be' used in the fourth sub-section were considered in Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay(1). In that case the delay was of 8 days.. Giving proper meaning to the expression it was observed: We agree that forthwith in section 3 (3) cannot mean the same thing as as soon as may be in section 7, and that the former is more preemptory than the latter. The difference between the two expressions lies, in our opinion, in this that while under section 7 the time that is allowed to the authority to send the communication to the detenu is what is reasonably convenient, under section 3 (3) what is allowed is only the period during which he could not, without any fault of his own, send the report. The delay of 8 days was held explained thus: What happened on the 16th and the following days are now matters of history. The great city of Bombay was convulsed in disorders, which are among the worst that this country has witnessed. The Bombay police had a most difficult task to perform in securing life and property, and the authorities must have been working at high pressure in maintaining law and order. It is obvious that the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the order for a period of 12 days even without approval. The approval was done within the time and began to operate as soon as made. It was contended that the approval ought to have been communicated to the detenu and without this communication the detention could not be legal. Reliance was placed upon certain cases to show that persons affected by an order must be communicated that order if it is to be effective. In Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another( [1962] 1 S.C.R. 676) (a case under the Land Acquisition Act 1894) it was held that the award of the Collector must be communicated, and that this was an essential requirement of fair play and natural justice. The Court was considering a question of limitation Which ran 'from the date of the Collector's award' in the proviso to s. 18 and was not prepared to construe those words in a literal or,mechanical way. The reason which prevailed for making a distinction between an order passed and an order communicated do not obtain here. In Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab([1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 713) an order of dismissal of a public servant passed by the Minister on the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y fresh order but the same old order with the added approval and what the detenu can question if he be so minded, is the original detention and not the approval thereof. (See in this connection Mohammed Afzal Khan v. State of Jammu Kashmir()[1957] S.C.R. 63.). We accordingly consider the ruling inapplicable. It is next contended that the State Government was also guilty of undue and unreasonable delay in reporting to the Central Government. The State Government communicated the decision on February 22. State Government received the communication from the District Magistrate on February 13, and approved the action on February 19. The communication to the Central Government on February 22 was not so much delayed that it is not covered by the expression 'as early as may be' explained by this Court in Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar v. The Commissioner of Police Greater Bombay's(1950 S.C.R.) case. Mr. Ramamurthy desired us to calculate the time from February 9 but we do not think that is possible. Time can only be calculated from the moment the matter reached the State Government. The State Government took a week to consider these cases and it is reasonable to think that there m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. That you have by your speeches and activities induced the people of certain areas to offer violent resistance to paddy procurement thereby preventing the Government from maintaining supplies essential to the community during times of need. The above reports are evident from the facts that on 12-11-67 you artended a mass meeting at Kalyanpur, a secret meeting on 13- 11-67 at Asha rambari, again mass meetings at Teliamura on 28-11-67 at Moharchhara Bazar on 16-12-67, on 6-1-68 at Telia- mura and on 21-1-68 at Stable ground, Agartala. Because of your activities and incitement, on 2-2-68 the procurement staff were offered a strong and violent resistance by an unruly mob at Chalitabari P-S. Telia- mura. It is submicted that the grounds do not give anydetails since no particulars of time, place and circumstances have been mentioned, and relevant and irrelevant matters have been included. Reference is made to two cases decided recently by this Court in which the grounds were found insufficient. They are: Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar([1968] 2 S.C.R. 505) and Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar Others ([1968] 3 S.C.R. 587). We find no such vagueness in the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court. The address of the petitioner is accurate and the I father's name is also correct. Nothing much turns on the fact that the father was described as dead. The petitioner ha.s not objected till he reached this Court and the authorities would hardlybe expected to hold a wrong man and let the real man go free.We reject this contention. The next contention concerns the discrepancy in the dates of meetings and what happened as a result of his activitiesand incitement. The two sets of dates may be put side .by side: Meetings Result 25-11-67 18-6-67 16-12-67 21-6-67 26-12-67 24-6-67 27-12-67 25-6-67 30-12-67 23-12-67 3-1-68 21-1-68 It is argued that the results in all but two dates could not follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
