MOHINUDDIN @ MOIN MASTER versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEED & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 28-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
A 
B 
MOHINUDDIN @ MOIN MASTER 
v. 
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEED & ORS. 
JULY 28, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
National Security Act, 1980: Section &--Preventive Detention-
Representation by detenu-Disposal of-Unexplained and unreason-
able delay-Detention whether illegal and invalid-Failure to consider 
representation without waiting for opinion of Advisory Board-
C Detention whether rendered invalid. 
Constitution of India, Articles 22(5), 32 & 226-Habeas Corpus 
petition-Preventive detention-Validity of order-Burden of proof on 
detaining authority-Effect of unexplained and unreason11ble delay in 
D disposal ofdetenu's representation-Rule nisi-Persons competent to file 
return. 
E 
Practice & Procedure: Writ Petition-Issuance of writ of 
habeas corpus-Disallowance on ground of imperfect p/eadings-
Valitfity of. 
.. _. 
The appellant was placed under detention on September 8, 1986, ,J
consequent upon an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 
Beed under s. 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on his being 
satisfied that it was necessary to do so 'with a view to preventing him 
y 
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
F order'. He was served with the grounds of detention alongwith copies of 
the relevant documents on September 14, 1986. He addressed a re· 
presentation to the Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra on September 
22, 1986 through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Aurangabad, wbo 
forwarded the same to the State Goverument, Home Department which 
received it on September 26, 1986, and on the same day forwarded It to 
G the District Magistrate for his comments. On October 3, 1986, the 'r 
District Magistrate returned the representation along with his com· 
ments and the same were received in the Home Department on October 
6, 1986. The State Government had, in the meanwhile, accorded its 
approval to the impugned order of detention under s. 3( 4) of the Act on 
September 18, 1986. On October 6, the appellant made another 
H representation to the Advisory Board against the order of detention. 
668 
MOHJNUDDJN v. DISIT. MAGISTRATE 
669 
if 
The Advisory Board met on October 8, 1986, considered the represen-
A 
tation and forwarded its report to the State Government on October 13 
recommending confirmation of the order of detention. Thereafter, the 
representation made by the appellant was processed in the Home 
Department along with ~e report of the Advisory Board and forwarded 
to the Chief Minister's Secretariat where the same was received on B 
October 23, 1986. The representation remained undisposed in the 
Chief Minister's Secretariat and was put up before him on November 
17, 1986 and he rejected the same. 
Upon these facts, the appellant moved the High Court by a pell-
tion under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the grant of a writ of habeas 
corpus on the next day I.e. on November 18, 1986 contending that his c 
continued detention was unconstitutional and void inasmuch as there 
~ 
was inordinate, unexplained delay on the part of the detaining autho-
rlty to consider and dispose of his representation which was in violation 
of the constitutional safeguards enshrined in Art. 22(5) read withs. 8 of 
the National Security Act. The writ petition was dismissed by the High D 
Court inter alia on the ground of defective pleadings regarding lhe 
"'(' 
delay in Chief Minister's Secretariat in dealing wih the representation. 
In the appeal by special leave, the District Magistrate in his counter 
affidavit denied that there was any unreasonable delay in the disposal of 
the representation and submitted that no such ground regarding un· 
E 
reasonable delay was taken in the High Court in the writ petition, and 
~ was raised for the first time before this Court, presumably on the 
reasoning of the High Court. In the other counter affidavit the Desk 
Offtcer, Home Department (Special) explained the reasons for the delay 
in the Chief Minister's Secretariat asserting that the Chief Minister 
remained preoccupied with very Important matters of the State during 
F 
the period from October 23, 1986to November 17, 1986 and therefore it 
was not possible for him lo have dealt with the representation earlier. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The continued detention of the appellant was Illegal 
G 
..,,. 
and he must be set at liberty forthwith. [679G] 
2.1 It is incumbent on the State to satisfy the Court that the 
detention of the petitioner/detenu was legal a

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