LexARUN KUMAR ROY ALIAS KATU versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ARUN KUMAR ROY alias KATU v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL May 3, 1972 IP. J:AGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] Maintenance of nternal Security Act 26 of 1971-Detention .llnder-Whether justified when grounds disclosed only facts amounting to theft which could be proceeded with under ordinary law-Delay In .consideration of, de,enu's repre!l'entation by State Governmenl 'Whether renders detention i/le2al. T"- petitioner was detaill<!d in pursuance of an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 26 of 197 L The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate on August 24, 1971. The order was approved by the Stat~ Government under s. 3 ( 3) of the Act OR Septembor 4, 1971. TI1e petitioner who was aboconding after the making of the detention order was arrested on September 9, 1971. .Soon aft,er he was served with grounds of detention. On ·October 7, 1971 a rep1..,sentation made by the petillOner was received in the offices of the State Government. The represehtation was rejected by the State Government on Noveml>or 17, 1971. On the sam<> date the Advisory :Board before which the representation had been placed by the State Government under s. l 0 of 11>> Act reported that there was sufficient .cause for the petitioner's detention. On November. 26, J 971 the State Gove1rnment confirmed the order of detention in exercise of its ·powers under s. 12( J) of the Act. In a petition under Art. 32 of the Coasti- tution the petitioner .urged that (i) the theft of overhead copp>r-wire by him mentioned in the grounds of detention was an offence unc!.er 1he Indian Per.al Code which ·could tc tried under the ordinary law; (ii) there was undue delay in the consid.oration of his rei>resen•ation by the State Government which rejected it only on Nm•,mber I/, 1911 after having received it on October 7, 1971. Dismissing the petition, B c D E HELD: (i) Undoubtedly the State Government could if it had .chosen, have proceeded to put the ordinary criminal law in motion. F But conditions in West Bengal were far from normal when the acl, imputed to the p~titioner were committed. WagonJbreaking and re- moval of overhead traction wire posed a major problem to the mainte· nance of supplies and 'ervices essential to the community. If therefore the · authorities concerned felt that tre trial of· such cases under the ordinary law of the land would not meet the requirements of the situa- tion and particularly in the case of activities ·of the ~ind mentione<.1• in G ~ grounds .which we.re committed in the midd'ic of the nigh~ when there could be few eye witnesses and even those who viewed such incidents would be apprehensive of their own safuiy 'it they were asked to give evidence against such . dangerous persons who went about arm- ing themselves with ··swohfs and daggers not only to prevent tt.cir appre- hension but also to terrorise persons who might feel inclined to put up any obsttuction, the State would not be unju:tified in proceeding in the way it did. [555 G-556 Bl H No doubt the removal of overhead traction wire would .be a case of theft but that is not to say that such removal would not al•o be 8 D A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, J.) 553 prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to tho community, specially whert indulged in on a large scale. [556 CJ (ii) The allel!Od delay in t~.e consic'.•:ration of the petition,r"s re- presentation by the State Government did not render the detentio. iliegal under the provisions of L: Act or of the Con .. titution. The Act docs not make it o1:J:gatory 0;1 the State Government itself to consider the representation of the detenu but makes it obligatory on tlr. part of the State Government l.l place the case before the Advisory Board along with tb: repr.,.entation if any made by the person affected by the o'rder. Although s. 15 of the Act gives the appropriate govern- ment power to release a detenu for a temporary period with or with- out conditions, the Act does not empo\\r.!r the Government to reli!ac « detenu finally except after the report of the Advisory Board. (560 H-561 DJ Further, the detenu made no g'rievance in his writ petifon about th!! delay in the consideration of his. representation. If any such plea had been taken the Court would have had to consider whether Govern- ment had any explanation to offer ~or the delay. Jn this case the Gc"vrnment ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.