BIDYA DEB BARMA ETC. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TRIPURA, AGARTALA

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 06-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

562 
BIDY A DEB BARMA ETC. 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, TRIPURA, AGARTALA 
August 6, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. 
SHELAT, V. 
BllARGAVA, 
G. K. MITTER AND C. A. VA!DIALINGAM, JJ.) 
Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950, ss. 3(3) and 3(4)-Section 3(3) 
requiring District Magistrate to report order of detention to State Govcrn-
nzent 'fortlnvitlr'-Meaning of 
'forthwith'-State 
Government's 
order 
•vhether ntust be com1nunicated 
to 
detenu--Communication 
under s. 
3(4) by State Government to Central Government-Effect of de/ay-
'As soon as may be' ins. 3(4), meaning of-Detention whether mala 
tide-Grounds whether va11ue-Grounds of detention supplied in language 
not known to detenu-Effect of delay in raising ohjec1io11. 
The petitioners were arrested and detained on February 11, 
1968 
under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 bv the orders of the District 
~agistratc, Tripura. 
They challenged thcif dcrcntion on the following 
among other grounds: (i) that the District Magistrate passed the orders 
df detention on February 9. 1968 but made his report to the State Govern-
ment only on February 13 and therefore the report was not made 'for-
thwirh' as required hy s. 3(1); (ii) that the Stale Government did not 
communicate the ap-proval to 1he detcnus and without such communica-
tion the order could not be effective; (iii) that the Stale Government re-
corded its approval under s. 3(3) on Fch-ruary 19 but communicated it 
to the Central Government only on Fchruary 22 and this was not done 
'as soon as may be' within the meaning of s. 3(4); (iv) that the grounds 
supplied were vague: (v) that the detention order was ma/a fide. 
One of 
the petitione·r.s also relied on the f<lct that the grounds were supplied to 
him in English which he did not understand. 
HELD: (i) The word 'forthwith' has been interpreted by this Court 
in Jo;:lekar's case to mean the period during which the detainin~ authority 
could not ",vithout any fault of his ov.·n" send tht' report. 
In the pre<;cnt 
case the order of detention passed on February 9 \Vas communicated to 
the State Government on February 13 hut the District Magistrate in his 
affidavit had explained that he was occupied \\rith urgent official work and 
that 10th and 11th were holidays. 
Thus there was delay only because the 
report \\'<K not made on the 12th. 
Even i'f the meaning from the ruling 
in Joglekar's cao;e is applied strictly, the delay '"'as explained sufficiently. 
[565 C: 566A, D] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Keshav Nilkantlr loRlekar v, The Commissioner 
of Police 
Greater 
Bombay. [1956] S.C.R. 653 at p. 658-60, applied. 
G 
(ii) There is no provision in the Act that the approval under s. 3(3) 
must be communicated to the clctenu. Section 3(3) docs not specify that 
the order of approval is anythin~ more than an administrative aporova1 
by the State Government. If this he so the nccC5sity of communication of 
the approval docs not arise with that strictness as does the decio;;km under 
r. JOA (8) of the Defence of India Rules. 
A!thoueh it mav be fair even 
under the Preventive Detention Act to inform the detenu of all the stages 
throul!h v.·hich his detention passes, and it mav be desirable 
to have 
a 
provision to that effect included in it. the existing state of the law did 
not justify the imPOrtation df the strict rule to cases 
under this 
Act. 
[566 F, 567 D, GJ 
H 
.. 
• 
' 
. 
--~1 
A 
B 
c 
n. 
E 
F 
B. D. BARMA, v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Hidayatullah, C.J.)' 
563 
The scheme of the Preventiw Dotention Act is merely to 
approve 
the original detention by the District Magistrate and the continued deten-
tion after 12 days is not under any fresh order but the same old order 
with the added approval, and what the detenu can question is the original 
detention and not the approval thereof. [567 HJ 
Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer 
& Anr., [1962] 1 S.C.R. 676, Bachhittar Singh v. 
State of Punjab, 
[1962J Supp. 3 S.C.R. 713 and Biren Dutta & Ors. v. Chief Commissioner 
of Tripura & Anr., [1964J 8 S.C.R. 295, distinguished. 
(iii) The State Government having reached its decision on February 
19, its communication under s. 3 ( 4) to the Central Government on 
February 22 was not so delayed that it is not covered by the expression 
'as early as may be' which was explained in Joglekar's case to mean 'what 
is reasonably convenient'. 
Various things have to be done before the 
report to the Central Government can be made and a gap of 3 days i

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