LexDWARKA DASS BHATIA versus THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 Raja Bahadu,. Motilal Poona Mills v. Tukaram Piraji Ma sale Govinda Menon J, 1956 November 1. 948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] counsel for the appellant himself has drawn our atten- tion to the agreement. In view of that it is n9t necessary for us to decide in this case whether it was open to the Bombay High Court to pass any order about costs in this Court while granting a certificate of fitness under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution, and we direct that the appellant should pay to the respon- dents the costs of this appeal in one set and bear its own·costs thereof. Appeal allowed. DW ARKA DASS BHATIA v. THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR. [JAGANNADHADAS, B.P. SINHA and J&FER IMAM JJ] Preventive Detention-Grounds based on alleged illicit smtigglina of three categories of essential goods to Pakistnn-Two categories found not to be essential goods-Whether order of detrntion bad- Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, Wll, ss. 8(2) and 12(1). The petitioner was detained by virtue of an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under s. 3(2) of the Ja.mmu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 and tbat order was'confirmed and continued by an order passed by the Government of the State of Jammu and K"shmir under s. 12(1) of the Act after taking the opinion of the Advisory Board. The order recited tl!at it was necessary to detain the petitioner vdth a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and was based on the ground of alleged illicit smuggling by the petitioner of essential goods such as shaffon cloth, zari and mercury to Pakistan. It was '- found that shaffon cloth and znri were not essential goods. It was not established that the smuggling attributed to the petitioner was substantially only of mercury or that the smuggling as regards shaffon cloth· and zari was of an inconsequential nature. Held, that the order was bad and must be quashed. The sub· jective satif:;faction of the detaining authority must be properly based on all the reasons on which it purports to be based. If some out of those reasons are found to be non-existent or irrelevant, the Court cannot predicate what tbe subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those rea&ons. To - - ~ ... S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 949 uphold the order on the remaining reasons would be to substi · tute the objective standards of the Court for the ilubjective satis- faction of the authority. The Court must, however, be satisfied that the vague or irrelevant grounds are such as, if excluded, might reasonably have affected the subjective satisfac1ion of the authority. Keshav 'l.'alpade v. The King Emperor ([1943] F.C.R. 88), Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's case ([1951] S.C.R. 167), Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi ((1953] S.C.R. 708) and Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of U.P. ([1954) S.C.R. 418), relied on. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 172 of 1956. Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. S. N. Andely, amicus curiae, for the petitioner. Porus A. Mehta, T. M. Sen and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 1956. November 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAG.ANNADHADAS J.-This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the petitioner who was under detention by virtue of an order dated the 5th Sep- tember, 1956, isRued by the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under sub-section (2) of sec- tion 3 taken with sub-section (1) of section.12 of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was first placed under detention by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate, J ammu, under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Act on the 1st May, 1956', and that order was confirmed·and co·ntinued on the 5th September, 1956, under sub-section (1) of sec- tion 12 of the Act by the Government after taking the opinion of the Advisory Board. The two orders of detention, one of the District Magistrate dated the 1st May, 1956, and the other of the Government dated the 5th September, 1956, recited that the petitioner is directed to be detained because it was necessary to make such an order "with a view to preventi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.