KHAIDEM IBOCHA SINGH ETC. versus STATE OF MANIPUR

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 08-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1022 
KHAIDEM IBOCHA SINGH ETC. 
V. 
STATE OF MANIPUR 
October 8, 1971 
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND 
. 
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
Preventive detention under Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970--
o"elay in considering represcnta'tions to Sta~ Government-Eff_ect on de-
t/Mtion orders-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-lf violated. 
The petitioners were detained by orders of detention under the Orissa 
Preventive Detention Act, 1970, and the grounds of detention were fur-
nished to them on tbo same day. They sent a representation to the State 
Government, and the State Government rejected it 17 days late\". 
The 
petitioners challeng•d the validity of the order of detention under Art. 
32 on the allegation that the del~y cvnstituted a v:olation of their right 
under Art. 22(5). 
Allowing the petitions. 
HELD : There has been an uruoxplained delay of 17 days in disposing 
of the representation of the detenus, and consequently, the\"e has been a 
nolation of the constitutional right guarante.od under Art. 22(5) to the 
petitioners. ·[1030 A-Bl 
The question whether there is delay in dispoiing of the representation 
made by a detenu and if so whether that delay has been properly explain-
ed by the State will have to be gathered f\-om all the facts and circums-
tances of a particular case. 
In the present case, the respondent did not 
state what steps were taken from the date of receiving the reprewntation 
to the date of rejecting it, excepting making a very bald statement that 
inquiries were sought from jail autholr:ties through the sub-deputy collec-
tor, and that the jail authorities sent a letter two days before rejecting the 
representation. 
There is no averment in the counter affidavit that the 
inquiries were made drally, and in the absence of such an averment it is 
reasonable to presume that being an official matter there would be some 
correspondence. 
But ne:ther the "details of any enquiries made, nor the 
correspondence, were referred to or disclosed. [1029 E-H] 
Durga Show etc. v. State of West Bengal, W.P. Nos. 198, 205/69 etc. 
dated 2-9-1969, Khairul Haque v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 246/ 
69 dated 10-9-1969, Prr,bhakar Shankar Dhuri v. Sh. S. G. Prashan & 
Ors., W.P. No. 514170 dated 18-12-1970 and Jcyanarayan Sukul v. State 
of Wes~ Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 225. followed. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 289 to 295 of 
1971. 
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for writs 
in the ,nature of habeas corpus. 
S. C. Manchanda, 0. P. Verma and Petitioners were also 
present, for the petitioners (in all the petitions). 
R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent (i,n all the petitions). 
A 
B 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
[ 
' 
A 
K. I. SINGH V. MANIPUR (Vaidialingam, J.) 
1923 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. The seven petitioners in these writ petitions 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of the 
orders of detention dated January 31, 1971 passed against each 
of them by the District Magistrate, Manipur (Central) under sub-
fl 
s. ( 2) of s. 3 read with sub-s. ( 1) of the Orissa Preventive Deten-
tion Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as extended 
to Manipur. They seek relief for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus 
and for directions being i>sued to the respondent-the State of 
Manipur to release them from custody. 
The orders of detention state that they have been passed with 
C a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner 
prejudicial to the maintenance of pu'b1ic order. ·The petitioners, 
in consequence of these orders, were taken into custody and detain-
ed. 
Along with the petitioners another person, Prof. Nandlal 
Sharma, was also detained. The grounds of detention, as required 
by s. 7 ( 1 ) of the Act were furnished to the detenus on the same 
I) day. The order of detention passed against Prof. Nandlal Sharma 
was later on revoked by the Lt. Governor and he was released. 
The petitioners, in Writ Petitions .Nos. 289, 290, 291 and 295 
of 1971 are either Masters of Arts (In Poiitical Science) or Master 
of Arts, Education and are all Professors of Colleges of Moirang or 
Imphal. The petitioner in W•it Petition No. 294 of 1971 holds 
r, 
M.Sc., B. Ed., degrees and is an Assistant Head Master in a H'gh 
School in Imphal. The educational qualifications of the petitioner 
in Writ petitions Nos. 292 and 293 are not clear from the records 
but they claim to be socral workers. 
The District Magistra

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