CHOUDHURY DHARAM SINGH RATHI versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 25-11-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1958] 
1957 
and that, accordingly, the tenant acquired the rights 
Asa Ram 
of a hereditary tenant. That decision has no applica-
v. 
tion when the lease is, as held by us, not a prudent 
Ram KaU 
transaction binding on the mortgagors. In this view, 
venkatarama 
the questions raised by Mr. Sinha on the construction 
Aiyar J. 
of s. 30(6) ands. 11 of the Act ands. 15 of the Agra 
Tenancy Act, 1926, do not arise for decision. 
1957 
November, 25. 
In the result, the appeal is allowed, the decree 
passed by the Board is set aside, and that of the Re-
venue Officer, Meerut affirmed by the Commissioner, 
restored. The respondents will pay the costs of the 
appellants throughout, including the costs of the 
remand. 
Appeal allowed. 
CHOUDHURY DHARAM SINGH RATHI 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, S. K. DAS, 
GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) 
Preventive · Detention-Failure of the Advisory Board 
to submit its report within time-Effect-Detenu, if must 
be set at liberty-Preventive Detention Act (No. IV of 
1950), SS. 10, 11. 
Submission of its report by the Advisory Board under 
s. 10 of the Preventive Detention Act within the time pres-
cribed by that section is of the utmost importance to the 
detenu and if the Board fails to do so any further deten-
tion beyond that period becomes unlawful. 
Consequently, where the case of the detenu was tbat 
the.Advisory Board had not submitted its report within ten 
weeks of his detention and his detention thereafter had, 
therefore, become illegal and no attempt was made on 
behalf of the Government to controvert that case in the 
counter-affidavits filed on its behalf, the detenu must be 
set at liberty. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition No. 135 of 1957 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in 
the nature of habeas corpus). 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
999 
N. C. Chatter.jee and Naunit Lal for the petitioner. 
1?57 
N. S. Bindra and T. · M. Sen, for the respondents. Choudhury Dltaram 
· 
. • 
· 
Singh Rathi 
1957. November 25. The followmg Judgment of 
v. 
the Court was delivered by 
The State of 
DAS, C. J.-This is an application for a writ in the 
nature of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner who 
was detained by an order made by the District Magis-
trate,· Karna! under s. 3 of the Preventive Detention 
Act on the August 18, 1957, and which was approved 
by the State Government on August 29, 1957. 
In para lO(xii) of his petition the petitioner stated 
that he made representations before the Advisory 
Board and personally appeared twice before it, but 
the Board had not yet passed any order and he con• 
tends that his detention has become .illegal and bad. 
Under s. 10 of the Preventive Detention Act, the 
Advisory Board is enjoined, after going .through the 
procedure therein laid down; to make its report to the 
State Government within ten weeks from the date of 
the detention. On the report being ·made the State 
Government has to take steps under s. 11 of the Act. 
If the report is against the detention the Government 
has no option but must release the detenu forthwith. 
In such a case the delay in the submission of the 
report may result in prolonging the detention beyond 
the period signified by the expression "forthwith" 
occurring ins. 11 read withs. 10. On the other hand 
if the report approves of the detention the Govern-
ment may but is not bound to continue the detention 
and if it does decide to continue the detention, it has 
to fix the period of such detention. In this case also 
the delay in the submission of the report deprives the 
detenu of the advantage of a fresh decision by the 
State Government about the continuation of nis deten-
tion. 
It, therefore, follows . that in either case the 
making of the report within the time prescribed by 
law is of the utmost importance to the detenu and the 
failure to make the report in time may quite conceiv-
ably have the effect of unlawfully prolonging the 
detention and, therefore, after the expiry of the ten 
Punjab 
Das C.J. 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
1957 
weeks the detenu may well complain that he has been 
Choudhury Dharamdeprived of his personal liberty otherwise than in 
Singh Rathl 
accordance with procedure established by law. The 
v. 
,, ten weeks' time within which the report of the Advi-
Th• State o, 
B 
d 
t 
b fil d . th' 
. d 
Punjab 
sory 
oar was o e 
e 
m 
rs case expire on 
October 27; 1957. This Petit

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