MOHD. ALAM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 14-02-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
MOHD. ALAM 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
February 14, 1974 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. s. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
379 
Prevention detention-' Services and Supplies' in 
s. 
3 ( 1) (a) (Ui) 
of the 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Scope of-Detention until the 
expiry of the Defence of India Act. if ralid-Counter-af]idavit on behalf of 
State-Who should file-Duty to com1nu11icate material particulars to the detenu. 
The petitioner was detained by an order passed under s. 3 (2) of the Main-
tenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, with a view to prevent him from acting 
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to 
the community. The detention order was confirmed by the Government and 
the Government directed that the detention should continue till the expiration 
of 12 months from the date of detention or until the expiry of Defence of India 
Act. 1971, whichever is later. Twp instances of thefts of copper wire were given 
in the grounds of detention communicated to the detenu. 
He alleged that he 
haclbeen wrongfully arrested and detained for 22 days in the Police Station and 
that thereafter the detention order was foisted on him with false and concocted 
charges. The counter-affidavit was filed, not by the District Magistrate who 
passed the order of detention; but by a Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat who 
bad not personally dealt with the case of the detenu, and it stated that from 
records it appeared that the petitioner was a "veteran copper wire criminal". In 
a petition for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus it was contended that: (1) 
theft of te[e.communication wires or cables, may disrupt 'services' essential to 
the community but had no connection with the maintenance of 'supplies', and 
since no particulars whatever in relation to supplies were communicated to the 
petitioner the ground with regard to 'supplies' is irrelevant and vague and hence 
the detention order was violative of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution; 
(2) 
the 
period of detention under the impugned order was indefinite and uncertain and 
infringed Art. 22(7)(b); (3) the counter-affidavit filed was not by the officer 
who was satisfied about the necessity of detention and was insufficient to rebut 
the allegations of the petitioner that his detention was on false grounds . with 
ulterior motives; and ( 4) the grounds of detention conveyed to the petitioner 
were false, vague and deficient in material particulars in that the 'reliable infor .. 
mation' sho.wing that he was a "veteran copper wire criminal" was not commu .. 
nicated to him. 
HELD: (1) The expres!ion 'supplies and services' ins. 3(1)(a)(iii) of the 
Act is to be construed pragmatically in the context of each case with due stress 
on the phrase 'essential to the life of the community'. In a few cases these ex-
pressions may carry a meaning distinct from each other. But in mast cases the 
same activity may equally affect supplies and services and the connotations of 
'supplies' and 'services' may coincide or telescope into each other. Such will -be 
the case where there is large scale theft of copper wire by cutting and removing 
the same from the power mains or tele·communication installations or under-
ground cables. 
[382 E-GJ 
... 
Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bi'har Writ Petition No. 1972 of 1973, followed 
Strouds' Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edn.· p. 2939 and 
Bfackpool Corporation v. 
Locker [1948] 1, K.B. 349; referred to. 
(2) The Period of detention fixed under the irripugned orders does not in-
fringe the mandate of Art. 22(7)(b) of the Constitution. 
[383 G] 
Fagu Shah etc. etc. v. State of West Bengal Writ Petitions Nos. 41, 106, f 13, 
214, 44\'and 621 of 1973 decided on 20·!2-1973, followed. 
H 
(3) The proper person to file the.counter-affidavit is the District Magistrate 
who had passed the order of detention under s. 3 of the Act, and, if for some 
good reason he is not available the affidavit of a senior officer who 
personally 
dealt with the case of the detenu in the Secretariat or had put it to the minister 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 19(4 J 3 s.C.lt, 
for orders should have been filed. 
These obligations stem from the well-settled 
A 
principle that once a Rule Nisi is issued on a habeas corpus motion by the Court 
the onus is on the State to show that the liberty of the detenu has been lakeo 
away in accordance with the procedure established by law and that· the 
safe-
guards provided in Art. 22 an

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