GODAWARI S. PARULEKAR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 17-01-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

GODAWARI S. PARULEKAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
.-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
January 17, 1966 
[P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATAYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ] 
Defence of India Rules, 1962, r. 30---Stare Government whether can 
ezerclse authority to order detention delegated by It to Disrrlct Magistrat~ 
D1tmtion order passed during pend1ncy o/ habeas corpus proceedings 
whether vitiated by malice In law. 
The appellant was detained from November 1962 onwards under vari-
ous detention orders. She was released on February 4, 1964 but as soon 
u she came out of the prison gates, she was served with a fresh order of 
detention dated February 3, 1963 issued by the State Oavernmcnt under 
r. 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 
1962. 
She was detained with a 
view to prevent her from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence 
B 
c 
of India, the public safety and maintenance of public order. 
A petition 
filed by the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution against her 
detention under the said order was dismissed by the High Coun. The 
D 
appellant came to this Court by special leave. 
It was contended on behalf Of the appellant : 
(I) The State Gov-
munent having delegated its powers under r. 30 to District Magistrate 
by a notification dated 9th November 1962, it was not competent to pass 
an order of detention under r. 30. 
(2) The order of detention was bad 
because two ministers cannot legally jomtly pass an order of detention. (3) 
The Order of detention was vitiated by malice in law. (4) The High Coun 
E 
should have insisted on an affidavit from the Ministers. 
(5) There was 
no material to show that there was an apprehension that maintenance of 
public order would be prejudicially affected. 
HELD : There was no infirmity in the order under which the petitioner 
was detained. 
(i) By delegating its power under r. 30 to District Magistrates the 
State Government was not itself denuded of the power to act under 
r. 30. (317 HJ 
Huth v. Clarke, 25 Q.B.D. 391, relied on. 
King Emperor v. Slhnat/1 Banerje, 72 I.A, 241, distinguished and 
explained. 
(ii) There is no difficulty in two Ministers successively being satisfied 
F 
that it is necessary to detain a person for different reasons and then their 
G 
decision being carried out by one order of detention duly authenticated. 
• 
• 
' 
(318 DJ 
>·• 
Godavarl Sarnrao Parulekar v. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 6 S.C.R. 
446, referred to. 
... 
• 
(iii) The mere fact that the detention order is passed during 
the 
\. 
pendency of habeas co~pus. l'roceedings c.ann~t by itself lead to the con· 
clusion that the order is v1llated by mahce m law. If the Government 
H 
considers an order of detention, which is the subject-matter of challenge, 
to be invalid, there is no reason why it should not pass a valid order. 
(319 B·Dl 
314 
-
PARULEKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Sikri, J.) 
31S 
A 
Naranjan Singh Nathawan "· State of Punja/J, [19521 S.C.R. 395, relied 
on . 
.-.. 
(iv) Whether an affidavit by the Ministers concerned waa necessary 
or not was for the High Court to consider. 
t • 
(v) The Court could not go into to the question whether the material 
before the detaining authority was sufficient or not. 
, 
... 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
142-149. and 225-227 of 1964. 
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated April 13, 1964 
of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Applications Nos. 180-182,. 
189, 190, 191, 193 and 194 and 195 to 197of1964 respectively. 
R. K. Garg, for appellant (in Cr. A. No. 142/1964). 
The appellants appeared in person. 
N. S. Bindra and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondents . 
. 
Sikrl, J. These appeals by certificate granted by the Bombay 
High Court are directed against its judgment dated April 13, 1964 
in applications filed by the applicants under art. 226 of the Consti-
tution, and s. 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal 
Appeal No. 143 of 1964 has become infructuous because the appellant, 
S. V. Parulekar, has died. 
Mr. R. K. Garg appears on behalf of the appellanUn Criminal 
Appeal No. 142 of 1964. It is common ground that the points 
arising in all the appeals are common, and in order to appreciate 
the points, it would be sufficient if the facts in Criminal Appeal 
No. 142 of 1964, relevant to the arguments addressed to us, are 
only given. The relevant facts given in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the 
affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government a of 
Maharashtra a

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