ABDUS SUKKUR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 30-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

680 
ABDUSSUKKUR 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
May 30, 1972 
[H. R. KHANNA, J.] 
P1.·erentive Dttentio11-JVest Bengal (Prevention of Voilent Activities) 
Act ( 19 of 1970)-Unexpbined delay in considering detmu's l"ep•·eoenta-
tiBn-Efject of. 
In pursuance of detention order under s. 3 of the 
West 
Bengal 
(l'revention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, the petitioner was arrested. 
T.he State. Gover":ment receiyed a repesentation from the petitioner ag~inst 
bis detention, which was reiected by the State Government 27 dars 1fter 
the receip, of 
the 
representation. 
The 
delay in 
considering 
the 
representation of the petitioner was not expLained. 
Allowing the petition under Art. 32, 
HELD : According to Art. 22(5) of the Constitution when ani· pmon 
is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for 
preventive detention, the authority making the order •hall, as so'Jn as 
may. be, tbmn1unicate to such person the grounds on which the order 
has been made and shall afford him the earlier opportunity of miking 
~ representation against'the order. 
The foe) that the earliest opponunit~-
has to be afforded to the detenu for n1aking a representation necessarily 
implies that, as and when the representation is made, it 'hould be dealt 
with promptly. 
Otherwise, the requirement would be reduced t'l a farce 
and empty formality. 
In case the authority concerned is guilty of un-
explained delay in dealing with the representation, the detention would 
be liable to be assailed and declared unvalid on the ground of infraction 
of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. 
This is as it ~hould be bewuse the 
matter relates to the liberty of a subject wl>J has IY'...en or<k~d to be 
detained without recourse to a .regular triitl in a court of law. 
~682B-F] 
Jayanarayan Suku v. State of West Bengal, [1970) 3 S.C.R .. 225; 
Kliuiru/ ll.1que v. State of Wert Bengal, W.P. No. 246 of 1%9 decided on 
September 10, 1969; Prof. K. L. Singh v. State of Manipur, A.I.R. 1972 
· S.C. 438; Baidya Nath Chunkar v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 377 
<>f 197! decided on March 14, 1972; Kanti Lal Bros v. State of West 
B~ngal, W.P. No. 8 of 1972 decided on May 5, 1972. followed. 
. 
. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Wri'l Petition No. 85 of 1972. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in 
A 
ll 
c 
D 
E 
F 
1he nature of habeas corpus. 
G 
S. L. Chhibber, for the petitioner. 
G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KbaDDll, J. An order ·was made by the District Magistrate 
lJurdwan on February 10, 1971 under section 3 of the West 
Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's 
Act. No. 19 ol 1970) for the detention of Abdus Suklmr "with 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ABDUS SUKKUR v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, J.) 
es! 
a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial 
to the maintenance of public order". In pursuance of that order, 
Abdus Sukkur was arrested on September 24, 1971. Abdus 
Sukkur thereupon filed the present petition through jail under 
article 32 of the Constitution to challenge his detention. 
Mr. Chibber argued the case aml'cus curiae on behalf of the 
petitioner, while the State of West Bengal was represented by 
Mr. Chatterjee. 
After hearing the learned counsel on May 24, 
1972 I ordered that, for r~asons to be given later, the petitioner 
be set at liberty. I now proceed to set out those reasons. 
The order for the detention of the petitioner, as mentioned 
earlier, was made b~ the District Magistrate on February 10, 1971., 
The petitioner, it is stated,· was found to be absconding after the 
making of that order and he was arrested on September 24, 1971. 
He was then served with the order of detention along with the 
ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. 
In the meanwhile, on February 10, · 1971 the District Magistrate 
sent report to the State Government about the making of the 
detention order along with necessary particulars. The State Gov-
e,runent approved the detention order on February 18, 1971. 
The case of the petitioner was placed on October 23, 1971 by the 
State Government before the Advisory Board. 
On October 28, 
1971 the State Government received a representation from tho 
petitioner against his detention. The said representation was con-
sidered by the State Government and w~s rejected on November 
24, 1971. The representation was thereafter sent to the Advisory 
Board. The Advisory Board, afte

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.