DINANATH PANSARI versus COLLECTOR & D. M. KEONJHAR & ANR.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 01-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

sz 
A 
B 
D 
E 
DINANATII PANSARI 
v. 
COLLECTOR & D. M. KEONJHAR & ANR. 
April 1, 1975 
[H. R. KHANNA AND M. ff.BEG, JJ.] 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Section 3(1) (a) (iii)--Order 
of detention under-Two views possible on the need of detain-Court if can 
Interfere with subjective assessment and satisfaction. 
The order of detention dated 6-7-1974 passed by the District Magistrate 
of Keonjhar, Orissa, recited that the District Magistrate was satisfied -that 
with a view to 
preventing 
the petitioner from 
acting in any manner 
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the com· 
munity, it is necessary to make the order under Section 3 read with Section 5 
of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 
The first ground related to 
sale by him of two tyres without authority and cash memo. 
The second 
ground related to the disposal of the 140 out of 149 tyres in contravention 
of law. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition, challenging the detention and 
also 
the 
Special Leave Petition directed against the order of the Orissa High Court, 
HELD : (i) As the Manager of the United Commercial Company, the 
petitioner was certainly not a licensed dealer. The 149 tyres had been ob· 
tained by the company for actual use on the trucks but most of them had, appa· · 
rently, been disposed of in what is known, as the 'black market'. The pro· 
visions relating to licensed dealers did- not warrant such sales which were 
struck by the provisions of clause 2 of the Orissa Automobile Tyres and 
Tubes Control Order, 1973. The petitioner had not been detained for any 
irregulaf'ity or illegality committed as a licensed d_ea1er, but as a person 
who seemed to have been diverting tyres from their pretended use, to sales 
in "black market". He was unable to repel the allegation regarding the sale 
of two tyres. 
[55F; 56A] 
F 
Debu Mahto v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1974, S.C. 816 and Messrs 
G 
Pusparaj & Co. and Ors. v. Collector of Balasore & Ors. I.LR. [1972] Cuttack, 
747, referred to. 
(ii) It cannot be said that the impugned detention order is either arbit-
rary or not connected with the purpose for which a detention may be 
ordered under s. 3(l)(a)(iii) of the Act 
In considering the legality of 
such an order, this Couq cannot. function as a Court of Appeal, If there is 
any material to justify the passing of the detention order the necessity for 
it iS a matter of subjective assessment and satisfaction by the detaining autho-
rity with which no Court would be ordinarily justified in interfering. 
This 
Court would not interfere even if two views about the existence of the need 
to detain for the object set out in section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the 
Act 
were 
possible. It is only when the order is shown to be of such a nature that 
it could not ~sibly fall within the scope of the law conferring the power 
to make it that this Court would intervene to quash it. 
[56H; 57 AB] 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 39 of 1975. 
Petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution of India and Special 
Leave Petition No. 267 of 1975. 
From the judgment and order dated 15-1-75, of the Orissa High 
Court in C.J.C. No. 1133/74. 
l 
• 
• 
DINANATH V. COLLECTOR & DcM· (Beg, J.) 
53. 
A. K. Sen, B. P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and R. K. Maheshwari, 
A 
for the petitioner (In W. P. No. 39/75). 
· Bishen Narain, B. P. Maheshwari, 
Suresh Sethi 
and ·. R. K. 
Maheshwari, for the petitioner, (In S. L. P. 267/75). 
Gobind Das and B. Parthasarthy, for the respondents (In W. P. 
B 
No. 39/75). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
· BEG, J.-This habeas corpus petition is directed against a deten-
tion order dated 6-7-1974 passed by the District Magistrate of Keon- · 
jhar in Orissa. The order recites that the District Magistrate was 
C 
statisfied that "with a view to preventing Shri Dinanath Pansari s/o 
Shri Dwarikanath Pansari of Barbil town, P. S. Barbil, District Keon-
jhar from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary to 
· make" the order under Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Mainte-
nance. of Internal Security Act, 1971 '(hereinafter referred to as 'the D 
Act') . On the same date, grounds of this satisfaction were communi-
cated to the petitioner giving the following particulars ; 
"1. On 15-2-1974 you received Automobile (Truck) tyres 
from Madras Rubber Factory through Carry Co. at Barbil 
as Manager of United Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.