HADIBANDHU DAS versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 227 · Decided: 02-05-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HADIBANDHU DAS 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CUTTACK & ANR. 
May 2, 1968 
(J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA, C. A. VAIDIAUNGAM 
AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950, ss. 7 and 13 (2)-Rcquirements 
of-Translatio1l of order and grounds thereof 1nust b,e supplied to det~nue 
lVithin five days of detention-Order under s. 13(2) after revocation of 
earlier order 11111st be based on fresh facts-N!?cessity of application of 
111ind. 
On December 15, 1967 the District Magistrate, Cuttack 
served an 
order made in exercise of power under s. 3 (I )(a) (ii) of the Preventive 
Detention Act, 1950 directing that the appe.Jlant be detained on various 
grounds. ·on December 19, 1967 the appellant filed a petition in the 
High Court challenging the order of detention on the grounds inter alia 
that the order and the grounds. in support thereat served upon the ap~ 
pclJant were written in the English language which the appellant did 
not understand. 
On January 18, 1968 the District Magistrate supplied 
to the appellant an Oriya translation of the order and the grounds. On 
January 28, 1968 the State of Orissa re\1lked the order and issued a 
fresh order of detention. A translation of this order in Oriya \\'as sup-
plied to the appellant. Thereafter 
the appe!lan.t 
submitted a supple-
mentary petition chal1enging the validity of the order dated 
JanuarY 28. 
1968. The High Court of Orissa rejected the petition filed by the appel-
lant. 
Against that order, with certificate .granted by the High Court the 
appe1Jant came to this Court. 
HELD : (i) The order of the District Ma.gistrate passed on Decem-
ber 15. 1967 ran into fourteen typed pages. 
Mere oral explanation of 
such. an order \Vithout supplying him a translation in a script or langu-
age which he understood, amountc<l to denial of the right of being com-
municated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making 
a representation against the order. 
The order of the District ~fagistrate 
11\lt having been followed up by service within five days as provided by 
s. 7 ( 1 ) of the communication to him of the grounds on. which the order 
Vi'as made must be deemed to have becon1~ invalid an<l anv subseQuent 
detention of the appellant was unauthorised. [231 F-H] 
· 
Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 
[1962.] Supp. 
2 S.C.R. 
918, relied on.. 
(ii) The second order dated January 28, 1968 passed by the State 
G 
Government was not passed on any fresh facts which had arisen after 
the date of revocation of the first orde.r and was on that ground invalid. 
There is nothing in s. 13 (2) which indicates that the expression 'revoca-
tion' nieans only revocation of an order which is othetwise valid and 
operative : apparently it includes cancellation of all orders invalid as well 
1S valid. [233 F-H] 
The principle underlying s. 13(2) in its oresent form is the outcome 
H 
of insistence by Par1iament that the detaining authority shaII fully apply 
its mind to and comply with tbei requirements of the statute and of insis-
tence .upcn refusal to countenance slipshod exercise of power. [234 El 
228 
St.:PRl'.~E COURT REPORTS 
I I 969] I S.C.R. 
. Ba.sail/a Chandra Ghose v. King Emperor, 11945] F.C.R. 81, Naranian 
A 
Singh Nathawan v. Staie of Punjab, [1952] S.C.R. 395, and Shibban Lal 
Sai<sena v. S:ate of l!trar Pradesh & Ors. [1954] S.C.R. 418, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1210 of 
1968. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 11, 1968 
B 
of the Orissa High Coun in OJ .c. 454 of 1967. 
A. S. R. Chari, Vinno Bhagat, and Ravinder Narain, for the 
appellant. 
Niren De, Solicitor.General, G. R. Rajagopala, and R. N. 
SachJhey, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by 
Shah, J.-By order pronounced on April 22, 1968, we direct-
ed that the order passed by the State of Orissa detaining 
U1e 
appellant under the Preventive Detention Act be quashed. We 
proceed to record our reasons in suppon of our order. 
On December 15, 1967, the District Magistrate, 
Cuttack, 
served an order made in exercise of power under s. 3(1)(a)(ii) 
of the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 directing that the 
appellant be detained on the grounds that he--ilic appcllant-
was acting in a manner prejudicial to ilie maintenance of public 
order by committing breaches of public peace, indulging in illicit 
business in Opium, Ganja, Bhang, country liquor. riotous con-
duct, criminal intimidation and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.