DULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 05-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
.E 
H 
DULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
l'Vovernber 5, 1974 
589 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N, BHAGWATI, JJ,) 
Maintenance Of Internal Secu.rlty Act. 1971-S. 3(2)(1)-No 11ex11s between 
the groundis of detention communicated and the subjective satisfaction effect of. 
The order of detention passed under s. 3 (2) (I) of the Maintenance of Inter· 
nal Security Act, 1971- against the petitioner state.d that with a view to pre-
venting him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order, it was necessary to detain him. The grounds of. detention set out one 
incident of dacoity in a third class compartment of a running train where cash 
money was atolen by him. In his affidavit the District Magistrate stared that 
he was also satisfied that the petitioner was likely ·to act in a manner preju-
dicial to ~be maintenance of supPlies and services easential to the community. 
In a petition under art. 32 of the Constitution it was contended that thece was 
no nexus between the grou.nds of detention communicated to him and the 
subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, 
Allowing the petition. 
HELD : The .order of detention must be held to be invalid since the inci· 
dent of dacoity in a third class compartment of a running train for committing 
theft of money which constituted tlie solitary ground of detention was wholly 
irrelevant and the subjective satisfaction ·of the District Magistrate that· the 
petitioner .. would be likely to act in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of 
supplies and services essential to the community could not be founded upon It 
and was therefore colourable and no satisfaction at a11, [592B-GJ 
(2) The contention that the averment in the affidavit in reply had crept in 
through a mistake cannot be accepted as correct. The affidavit in reply had 
been made by the District Magistrate himself and it must be presumed that he 
made the statements with the sense of responsibility which his high office neces· 
sarily carried. If the District Magistrate was also not subjectively satisfied in 
regard to the likelihood of the petitioner to act in a manner prejudicial to th~ 
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, he would 
not have made such an averment in the affidavit in reply. [591E-F] 
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No; 371 of 
1974. 
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.) 
R. K. Jain, for the petitioner. 
G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The 1udgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAOWATJ, 1. This petition is directed against an order of detention 
dated 30th March, 1973 made by the District Magistrate, Nadia under 
section 3(2)(1) of the Ma.intenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 
The order of detention recited the satisfaction of the District Magistrate 
that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner 
prejudicial to the maintenance of J.>Ublic order it was necessary to de-
tain him and directed that the petitioner be aecordingly detained. Pur· 
suant to the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 3rd April, 
1973 and at the time of his a.rrest the grounds of detention dated 30th 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
' 
March, 1973 were served! upon him together with their translation in 
Bengalee· language. The grounds of detention started with a recital that 
the petitioner was being detained on the ground that he had been acting 
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and set out 
one incident of dacojty committed by him on the basis of which the Dis-
trict Magistrate had reached his subjective satisfaction in regard to the 
necessity of detaining the petitioner. The usual ritual prescribed by the 
Act was thereafter followed and the order of detention was approved 
by the State Government, the representation of the petitioner was con-
sidered and rejected, the 1case of the petitioner was placed before the 
Advisory Board and on r<:ceipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, 
the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government. The 
present petition was filed by the petitioner from jail challenging the vali-
dity of this detention. 
There were several grounds urged before us on behalf of the peti-
tioner in support of the petition, but it is not necessary to refer to all of 
them since there is one ground which is, in our opinion, sufficient to 
invalidate the order of detention. That ground rests on 

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