http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

SK. IBRAHIM

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1973

BENCH:

KHANNA, HANS RAJ

BENCH:

KHANNA, HANS RAJ

BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:

1974 AIR 736 1974 SCR (2) 803

1975 SCC (3) 13

ACT:

Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)-

Detention under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to

the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the

community-Held, on facts that the grounds were not vague and

there was no delay in considering the representation.

HEADNOTE:

The detention order served on the petitioner stated that on

three different dates he along with his associates was found

to have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly and

Howrah and violently attacked the anti-smuggling party and

disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The

representation of the detenu was received by the State

Government on June 2, 1973. The State Government rejected

the representation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to

the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board by their report

dated July 11, 1973, held that there was sufficient cause

for the detention of the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the

State Government confirmed the order of detention. The

detention was inter (alia challenged on the ground of delay

and vagueness of grounds.

Dismissing the writ petition,

HELD : (1) The State Government received the representation

on June 2, 1973 and rejected the same on June 4, 1973.

There was no delay in the disposal of the representation by

the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay

although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the

date of submission of the representation and its actual

disposal. [804 H]

(2)The mere fact that the detention order is on a

cyclostyled sheet wherein necessary particulars were filled

in ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were

filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order.

There was no evidence to prove the allegation. [805 C]

(3)The date, time and place of each of the incidents were

specified in the grounds. Particulars were also given

regarding the nature of the activities of the petitioner.

The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient

to apprise the petitioner of the precise activities on

account of which the detention order had been made. The

fact that the names of the associates of the petitioners

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

were not mentioned in the grounds of detention would not go

to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness.

The Courts look with disfavour upon vague rounds of

detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu

the precise activity on account of which he is being

detained so as to enable him to make an effective

representation. [806C]

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973.

Under Art 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a

Writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

S. C. Majumdar and A. Madan, for the petitioner.

Sukumar Ghosh, for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KHANNA. J- The District Magistrate of Hooghly passed an

order on May 9, 1973 under sub-section (1) read with sub-

section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal

Security Act, 1971 (Act

804

No, 26 of 1971) for the detention of the petitioner with a

view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to

the maintenance of supplies and services essential to--the

community. In pursuance of the, detention order, the

petitioner was arrested on May 14, 1973 and was served with

the order of detention as also the grounds of 'detention

together with vernacular translation thereof. Report about

the making of the detention order was sent by the District

Magistrate to the, State Government and the said Government

approved the detention order on May 18, 1973. The case of

the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board by the

State Government on June 5, 1973. The petitioner sent a

representation against his detention and the same was

received by the State Government on June 2, 1973. The State

Government rejected the representation on June, 4. 1973 and

forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory

Board. after considering the representation and hearing the

petitioner in person made report to the, State Government on

July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that

there, was sufficient cause for the, detention of the

petitioner. On July 30. 1973 the State Government confirmed

the order for the detention of the petitioner.

The petitioner in the meantime filed petition under section

491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta

High Court. The said Petition was heard by a Division Bench

of the High Court and was dismissed as per judgment dated

July 4, 1973. The present Petition under article 32 of the

Constitution was thereafter sent by the petitioner from jail

on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.

The petition has been resisted by the State of West Bengal

and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary,

Home (Special) Department has been filed in opposition to

the petition. Arguments have been addressed before us by

Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh for

the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar has assailed the

detention of the petitioner on three grounds.

It has been argued in the first instance by Mr. Majumdar

that there was delay on the part of the State Government in

considering the representation of the petitioner and such

delay vitiates the detention. This contention. in our

opinion, is without any force. it would appear from the

affidavit filed by Shri Sukumar Sen that the representation

sent by the petitioner was received by the State Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

in its Home Department on June 2, 1973 after it had been

forwarded by the Superintendent, Hooghly Jail. The said

representation was then considered and was rejected by the

State Government on June 4. 1973. It cannot, in our

opinion, be said that there was any delay in the disposal of

the representation of the petitioner by the State

Government. It has been urged that the representation wag

sent by him from jail on May 25, 1973 and that a period of

10 days elapsed from the date of the submission of the

representation and its actual disposal. The above period

cannot also be said to be so inordinately long as might

affect the validity of the detention.

805

It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the

detention order contained blanks which were filled in

subsequent to the signing of that order by the District

Magistrate. This allegation has been denied in the

affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and, in

our opinion, there is no cogent ground to accept the

correctness of the allegation. The petitioner was

admittedly not present at the time the detention order was

signed by the District Magistrate and. as such, he cannot be

in a position to state whether the detention order contained

blanks when it was signed by the District Magistrate. The

mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet

wherein necessary particulars were filled in ink would not

go to show that the particulars in ink were filled in sub-

sequent to the signing of the detention order.

Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Majumdar that the grounds

of detention on the basis of which the order for the

detention was made were vague. In this connection we find

that the grounds of detention were as under

"On 31-3-73 in the early hours of the morning

you and your associates were found to smuggle

rice by train No. of 2 Dn.

(Tarakeshwar--Sheofaphuli local) from non-

rationed areas to rationing areas of Hooghly

and Howrah District in contravention of the

provisions of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy

(Restriction on Movement) Order, 1968. At

04.27 hrs. of date when the train reached

Kamarkundu Railway Station the anti-smuggling

staff of Dankuni P.S.checkpost under the

command of S.I. Biren Das, seized 14 quintals

and 55 kgs. of smuggled rice belonging to you

and your associates after rummaging the said

train. At this you and your associates

launched a violent attack on the anti-

smuggling party and threw ballasts towards

them causing injuries an the persons of some

of the anti-smuggling staff with a view to

scare them away and thus attempted to escape

with the smuggled rice. The anti-smuggling

party had to open fire in self-defence and

could be able to arrest two of your associates

on chase when you and your other associates

managed to escape. As a result of this. there

was serious disruption in the smooth running

of train services on Tarakeshwar-Howrah line

causing inconvenience to the travelling public

and transshipment of commodities essential- to

the community. The said activity of yours thus

attract section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the

Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

(Act No. 26 of 1971).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

2.On 12-4-73 at 11-21 hrs. you and your

associates were found to board train No. 4 Dn.

(Bombay-Howrah Mail) with huge quantity of

rice with a view to smuggle them from

nonrational areas to the industrial belts of

806

Howrah in contravention of the provisions of

the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on

Movement) Order, 1908 when the train stopped

at Jaugram Railway Station on Burdwan-Howrah

Chord line due to alarm chain pulling by some

of your associates as per previous arrange-

ments, S. P. N. O. Dey of G.R.P. Enforcement

Branch, Howrah with his staff who were

travelling by the said train could be able to

stop the train at Chandanpore Railway Station

with the help of the Guard of the train. On

seeing the S.I. and his Party, you jumped down

from the train and fled away from there

leaving behind the bags of smuggled rice

weighing 5 quintals. The S.I. and his staff

could also be able to seize 41 quintals and 75

kgs. of smuggled rice from the possession of

your other associates who also managed to

escape with you. The total value of the smug-

gled rice seized was about Rs. 10,000/-. By

your such act you tried to frustrate the food

policy of the Government in respect of supply

and distribution of essential commodities to

the community. The said activity of yours

thus attract section 5(1)(a)(iii) of the

Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971

(Act 26 of 1971).

3. On 23-4-73 at 12-20 hrs. when train No.

C-258 Down (Burdwan-Howrah Chord line local)

arrived at Kamarkundu Railway Station, the

anti-smuggling party of Howrah G.R.P.

Cordoning saw You in a 3rd class compartment

of the said train with the bags of smuggled

rice in contravention of the provisions of the

West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on

Movement) Order, 1968. The anti-smuggling

staff under the command of S.I., J. C. Das

arrested You from the 3rd class compartment of

the said train with two gunny bags containing

169 kgs. of rice which 'you were carrying

without any permit or authority, By your such

act you tried to frustrate the food policy of

the Government in respect of supply and

distribution of essential commodities to the

community. The said activity of yours thus

attract section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Main-

tenance of. Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act

26 of 1971)."

It would appear from the, above that the date, time and

place of each of the incidents were specified in the

grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature

of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the

grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise the

petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the

detention order bad been made. It cannot in the

circumstances be said that the Petitioner was in any way

handicapped in making an effective representation- The fact

that the names of the associates of the Petitioner were not

mentioned in the grounds of detention would not go to show

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness. The,

courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of

807

detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu

the precise activity on account of which he is being

detained. The detenu is thus prevented from making an

effective representation which he night possible have,

made, if he had been apprised of the objection able activity

which led to his detention. Where, however, as in the

present case the requisite details of the activity for which

the order for detention was made have been conveyed to the

detenu and he is not shown to have been prejudiced or

handicapped in making in effective representation, the

argument about the vagueness of grounds of detention must

plainly be held to be not tenable.

The petition consequently fails and is dismissed.

S.B.W.

Petition dismissed.

808