MISHRILAL JAIN versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP & ORS.

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1101 · Decided: 14-10-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MISHRILAL JAIN 
.v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP & ORS. 
October 14, 1971 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND 
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.] 
110 l 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, s. 3(2)(a)-At least one 
of the grounds of detention vague-Effect on detention order. 
The petitioner was a dealer in salt in the State of Assam. On account 
of unprecedented floods there was an acute scarcity of salt in the State. 
Although there was no law in the State regulating its distribution and sale, 
the Deouty Coffimissioner, in coflsultatio'l with the representatives of the 
local Chamber of Commerce, fixed the ceiling price of salt. The District 
Magistrate passed an order for detaining the oetitioner under s. 3(2)(a) 
of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, 01 the grounds: that he 
availed himself of the opportunity for profiteering in the commodity, (I) 
by resorting to hoarding, and (2) by secretly seWng this essential corn-
moditv at exorbitant rates, and was therefore acting in a manner prejudicial 
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. 
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity 
of the detention order, the petitioner contended that the grounds were 
vague and hence he had no opportunity to make a representation. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD : ( 1) The first ground was vague as no effective representation 
could have been made on its basis in the absence of particulars of the 
profiteering or hoarding activity. [1103 G-H] 
(2) Even assuming that this ground was not vague the second ground 
was vague, because, the idea .of exorbitant rate is a relative one and the 
ground did not convey any definite idea as to the price at which he was 
selling salt, nor the time or p!ace of tbe sales or the persons to whom the 
sales were effected. Since at least one of the itrounds was vague the order 
of detention was vitiated. [1103 H; 1104 A-B, F-G] 
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidva, [19511 S C.R. 167. 184 
Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, [19681 2 S.C.R. 505. Pushka; 
Mukheriee v. State of W. Bengal, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 635 and Motila/ Jain v. 
State of Bihar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587, followed. 
Kashav Talpade v. King Emperor, [1943] F.C.R. 88, applied. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 375 of 1971. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus. 
A. K. Sen, 
J. P. Bha•tacharjee, 
D. N. Mukhttjt!I!, I>. K. 
Hazarika and the petitioner in person, for the petitioner. 
S. V. Gupte arid Naunit Lal, for the respoodmt. 
...
1 1 0 ·2 
SLl'REME COURT REPQJ( I> 
(1972) l S.C.R 
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by 
A 
Mathew. J. 
This application filed under 
Article 32 
of 
the Constitution challenges the validity of an order for detaining 
the petitioner, passed by the District Magistrate of Kamrup, under 
Section 3 ( 2) ( u) of the. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 
1971 on August 30, 1971 and prays for the issue of a writ in the 
B 
nature of habeas corpus. 
On the conclusion of the hearing of the case on October 7. 
1971, we passed the following order :-
"We are satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate. 
Kamrup, dated August 30, 1971, detaining the petitioner under 
s. 3(2) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 
cannot be sustained and as such the order of detention is set 
aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith. 
The grounds for the decision will be given in due course." 
Now we proceed to state the facts and give the grounds of 
our decision. 
The petitioner was a dealer in salt and other commodities at 
Gauhati in the State of Assam. 
On account of unprecedented 
flood the State was practically cut off from the rest of the coun-
try in the month of July and August, 1971 and there was acute 
scarcity of salt in the State. 
Although there was no law in the 
State regulating the.distribution,-sale or price of salt, the Deputy 
Commissioner of Kamrup in consultation with the representatives 
of the Kamrup Chamber of Commerce fixed the ceiling price of 
salt at Rs. 19/- per bag of 75 kg. by his order dated August 14. 
1971. It was on the a!legatio.!_1 that the petitioner was 
acting 
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and ser-
vices essential to the community that the District Magistrate 
passed the order for detaining the petitioner. 
The grounds of detention cominunicated to

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