GODAVARI SHAMRAO PARULEKAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 29-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

1964 
K. C. Thomas. 
1. T. Officer, 
Bombay 
v. 
V. H. Shah 
Mudho/kor J. 
1964 
Ja1iuary, 
29 
SUPREME COURT REPORT-S 
We may add that the amendment of 1953 took effect from 
April I, 1953 and that of 1956 from April 1, 1956. 
Apart from the view expressed by the learned Judges 
as regards the effect of the changes made in s. 34( 1) with 
the provisos we have set out earlier a view which we have 
held is not correct-they did not further consider the pro-
per construction to be placed on the second proviso to s. 
34 ( 3) of the Aot on whlch the validity of the impugned no-
tice to the respondents must ultimately be decided. 
As we have pointed out earlier, at the beginning of the 
judgment, the learned Judges confined their attention prac-
tically only to the construction of proviso (iii) to s. 34(1) 
which was decided in favour of the respondents and did not 
permit them to argue the other points raised by them. We 
do not propose to decide these other points, particularly 
for the reason that the parties are not agreect as to what pre-' 
cisely were the contentions which were raised for argument. 
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the High 
Court is clearly wrong. 
We, therefore, allow the appeal, 
set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter 
to it for the consideration of the other points which were 
raised before it by the respondents but upon which they 
were not heard. As regards costs we think that they should 
abide the result of the appeal before the High Court. 
Appeal allowed and case remanded, 
GODAVARI SHAMRAO PARULEKAR 
v. 
STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.). 
Detention under Preventive Detention Act, 1950-0rder revoked by the 
State Government-Re-arrest under Defence of India Rules-Validity 
-Proper a~thority for passing order of detention-Allocation of 
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
447 
business of Governor under A.rt. 166(3) of Constitution whether 
necessary--Satisfaction of State 
Government that detention 
is 
necessary-Who should pass order of detention-Revocation of 
order of detention during pendency of appeal. 
Appellants were first detained on November 7, 1962 under Preventive 
Detention Act, 1950. That order was revoked by the Government and 
the appellants were released but re-arrested under Rule 30 of the Defence 
of India Rules. 
The orders of detention were served on appellants in 
Jail. Tue appellants challenged those orders in the High Court by filing 
habe:is corpus petitions under Art. 226 of the Constilutio:1 and <;, 491 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 
The writ petitions were ;iismissed 
by the High Court and the appellants came to this Court under a certifi-
cate from the High Court. 
The contentions raised by the appellants were that their detention was 
illegal because the detention order was served on them when they were 
in jail, that the orders of detention were passed without the satisfaction 
of the authority concerned regarding their necessity, the satisfaction was 
to be that of the Governor and not of any Minister, that there should 
have been fresh allocation of business by the Governor under Art. l66(3) 
of the Constitution after the passing of the Defence of India Ordinance, 
Act and Rules. that before the State Government could exercise the power 
conferred by Rule 30, there had to be delegation by the Central Govern-
ment that the order of detention did not show that s. 44 of Defence of 
India Act was kept in mind when the order was made and that unless 
the order showed on the face of it that the State Government thought 
that detention was the only mode in which the purpose of the Act and 
Rules could be carried out, the order was bad. Dismissing the appeals. 
Held: 
The orders of detention passed by the State Government and 
their service on the appellants in jail were perfectly valid and did not 
make the detention illegal. The appellants were detained not as under-
trials or as 
convicted persons but as detenus and hence the cases of 
Rameshwar Shaw and Makhan Singh Tarsikka did not apply in the present 
case. 
Reading the detention order as a whole, it was clear that it did say 
in substance that it was necessary to detain the appellants with a view to 
preventing them from acting in a manner prejudicial to the Defence of 
India, public safety and maintenance of public order. There was no diffe-
rence between the words ''so to

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