MOHD. DHANA ALI KHAN versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 11-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

t 
124 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MOHD. DHANA ALI KHAN 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
April, 11, 1975 
[N. L. UNTWAL!A AND s. MURTAZA FAzAL Au, JJ.] 
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971-Whether a single incident of 
their in a running train at night had nexus with disturbance of public order-
s. 14-:..-Jflhether confers a disc1-'etionary power on the ·Central (;overnn1ent to 
revoke or n?odify an order-Detaid;ng authority had other tnaterial before hini 
at the tilne Of passing the order-Whether vitiates the order of detention. 
The petitioner was detained under the provisions of the Maintenance o{ In-
ternal Security Act, 1971. In a petition under Att. 32 of the Constitution the 
petitioner contended that a single incid.~nt of theft committed in a train had no 
nexus with the disturbance of public order, (2) that under S. 14 of the Act it 
was open to the Central Government to revoke or modify the order of detcu-
tion and, therefore, there must be some material to shov.• that the Government 
of India applied its mind under S. 14 of the Act and (3) that the District 
l\.fagistrate was not only influenced by the grounds served on the petitioner but 
also by other materials on the record and as: such the order of detention \Vas 
vitiated. 
Allowing the petition, 
HELD ; ( 1) The ground mentioned in the order of detention did ha Ye a 
nexus with the disturbance of public order. It is true that the ground contained a 
single incident of theft of valuable property from some passengers travelling 
in a running train and may amount to robbery. But that did not by itself take 
the· case out of the purview of the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal 
Security Act. The allegation was tliat the petitioner had snatched away a wTist 
watch and a gold chain after putting the passengers of the compartn1ent to fear 
of death. Secondly, the theft had taken place at night in a running train in a 
third class compartment. The effect of it would be to deter peaceful citizens 
from travelling in trains at night. 
This would undoubtedly disturb th'! even 
tempo of the life of the community. 
[126D to F] 
(2) There is no material on record to show that the Central Government 
did not apply its mind at all under S. 14 of the Act. Section 14 nlercly confers 
a discretion on the Central Gove'fnment to revoke or modify an order of deten-
tion made by the State Government. It does not confer any right or privilege 
on the detenu. It is for the Central Government to revoke' or modify after the 
report was submitted to it. The mere fact that the Central Government did not 
choose to revoke or modify the order of detention without anything more can-
not necessarily lead to the irresistible inference that the Central Governn1ent 
failed to apply its nlind. It cannot, therefore, b'! said that as the Central Gov-
ernment did not apply its mind under S. 14 of the Act, lhis \vould invalidate the 
order of detention. 
[126G-H & 127A] 
(3) The order of detention suffers from. a veTy serious infirmity \vhich goes 
to the root of the matter. The District Magistra!e was influenced not only by the 
ground which was served on the petitioner but alsO by other materials on the 
record. The history sheet of the detenu which was placed before the District 
Magistrate had been produced and it could be seen from it that there were four 
incidents, many -of which related to thefts in running 1rains. It is true that in 
another place in his affidavit the District Magistrate had stated that he was 
satisfied only on the_ basis of the incident mentioned in the gro!Jnd served .on 
the petitioner. But this was contradictory to what he had stated tn the op_en1ng 
paragrfiph of the counter-affidavit. 
The District Magistrate, before passing the 
order of.detention, had other materials also before him. It cannot, therefore, be 
- ' 
• 
D. A. KHAN v. WEST BENGAL (Fazal Ali, J.) 
125 
said to \\-'hat extent the District Magistrate \Vas infh.i.enced by the other mate-
A 
rials and not by the material which is mentioned in the ground of detention. 
[127E-.GJ 
K!wdiram Das v. State of West Bengal, AJ.R. 1975 S. C. 550, referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 17 of 1975. 
Petition' Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
R. K. Jain-for the petitioner. 
Sukumar Ghosh and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondcni. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
FAZAL ALI, J .-The petitioner assails 
the order 
of detention 
.passed against him on August 23, 19
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.