AJIT KUMAR KAVLRAJ versus THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE, BIRBHUM AND ANR.

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 21 · Decided: 06-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
" 
21 
AJIT KUMAR KA VlRAJ 
v. 
THE DISTT. MAGISTRATE, BIRBHUM AND ANR. 
September 6, l974 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention-Duty of detaining authority to give unambig11ous.· 
grounds lo detemr-Procedural safeguards oj liberty-Duty to observe. 
· 
The petitioner was detained under s. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Secu· 
rity Act, 1971. The grounds communicated to him were, (1) that on 28-1-1973 
at about 4.30 p,m., he, as a direct purchasing agent of the Food Corporation of 
India sold out 4 quintals of paddy from the stock held in the account of the Food 
Corporation of India to three persons and by such clandestine deal hindered the 
procurement of paddy and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the mainten-
an::e of supplies and services essential to the community; and (2) that on the 
same day at about 10.30 p.m. a stpck of about 12 q,uintals of paddy was found in 
his godown and that he failed to justify the possession and that by such surrepti· 
tious business as a direct purchasing agent he impeded the progress of procure-
ment of paddy and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
supplies and services essential to the community. 
· 
In a petitio11 under Art. 32, challenging the d~tention, 
HEID .: ( 1 ) There was clear violation of Art. 
22 ( S) as no adequate op-
portunity had. been afforded to the petitioner to make .a proper representation, 
because, the grounds aire vague and uncertain and it is not reasonably possible for 
the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention. 
[22F-G] 
. 
With refete~e to the first ground it is not ~!ear whether the three persons 
mentioned in the ground were authorised purchasers or nol The ground des-
cribed the . tramaction as 
a1 
clandestine deal, 
but it is not shown 
how the transaction can be so described without any particulars ·to justify such · 
an observation. 
Similarly, no. definite particulats are disclosed even to prima 
facie justify the observation that ·the finding of paddy in· hi! possession was 
surreptitious business. [23C-E] 
(2) The petitioner submitted a long representation to the Government. But 
it could not · be said that on that account that he fully understood the import 
of the allegations mentioned in the grounds. The validity of the impugned order 
cannot be decided in the light of the representation made by the petitioner. He 
might have given the representation because an F.I.R. was filed against him for 
prosecuting him under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, l9SS, referring to 
the secpnd ground -Of detention and he might have come to know. the details in 
the course of the prosecution. Jn a case of preventive detention it is absolutely 
necessary to communicate the . grooods of detention to the detenu in clear and 
ambiguous terms giving such particulars as will facilitate making of an effective 
representation that tile order is unfounded: It is exceedingly important, in the 
interest of liberty of the ci1izen that -the minimum requirements of law are 
strictly complied with and the cletainmg authority applies .its mind in a pro~, 
mainlldr at the time of passing the order. [226'23C, FJ 
· 
(3) The order of the High Court dismissing the petition of the petitioner 
under. s. 491, Criminal ,Procedure Code, 1898, would not operate at rel Judlcata 
in an applir.ation before this Court under Art. 32. mo1 
' 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1880 of 1973. ·. 
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution .of .India. 
H. C. Mittar, for the pe~oner. · 
22 
SUPRliME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
P. K. Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu, for 
the 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Gourt was deliven~ by 
GOSWAMI, J.-By this application under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tic!D for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner challenges the validity 
of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhum, 
on March 21, 1973, under section 3 of the. Maintenance of Internal 
Security Att. 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971). The order of detention is 
passed on the ground that the petitioner has been acting in a manner 
prejudicial tc1 the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the. 
community. The impugned order is specifically founded on two 
grounds communicated t1) the petitioner. These are as follows ~-
( ll "On 28-1-73 at about 4.30 P.M. you as a Direct Pur-
chasing Agent of the Food Ccirporation of Ind
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.