LexNIRANJAN SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A c D E F G H NIRANJAN SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH July 18, 1972 691 (P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.J Constitution of India 1950 Art. 22(5) State Govt. must consider detenu's repre!lqltation expeditiously-when there is inordinate delay which is unexplained the detention muat be held to be illegal. Res Judicata-Petition under Art. 226 rejected-Petition under A.rt. 32 whether oarred by res judicata. The Distric: ~lagistrate of. Gwalior by his order dated May 26, 1971 under s. 2-A of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act (Amendment Act) of 1970 detained the pet'1ioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu. The petitioner made a representation within the prescribed period to the State <l<>vernment on June 19, 1971. It was dismissed by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on Augus· 17, 1971, and the Government directed that the order of detention would remain in force till 26th May 1972. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging :he detention order. The !>'tition was rejected by the High Court. Thereupon the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in thls Court. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition under Art. 226 having been dismissed, the petition under Art. 32 was barred by res judicata. In support of the petition it was urged that the o'der of the State Government rejecting the petitioner's repre·sentation was made after undue delay and was therefore in violation of Art. 22(5). HELD: (i) In view of the earlter decisions of this Court the pie-a of res judicata must be rejected. [693C-F] Ghu/am Sarvar v. Union of India and others [1967] 2 S.C.R. 271 am\ Writ Petitions Nos. 227 and 228 of 1969 decided on September 16 1969 re!ied on. ' (ii) Th_e words "afford him th~ earliest opportunity" in Art. 22(5) nave be"n mterpreted by the Court tn Abul Kasim"s case to 'imply that the State Government to whoift the representation is made should properly oo.nsider it 'llS expeditiously as possible. In Jayanarayan Suku/'s case also thlS eourt held t~;1_t the detenu's. representation must be considered expeditiously and bcrore reference 1s made to the Advisory Board. :!694C-F] In the present case the petitio_ner had specifically given the date of hJs representatton a!'d the date on which he said it was considered and rejected On the fac'i> of II there had been inordinate delay whi'ch made it incumbeni t t~e State to e~plain it and satisfy the Court that there was justification . or t ·ht delay. Stnce th~ State had not filed any counter-affidavit explain- mg " Y the repres~ntatIQn of the detenu had not been e ditiousl ~ifi,o~~d of ncy had tt. ch?'!en to set out the various steps takenxi;;; cor1 rl~ be illeg~l.ma~9~~irovmons of the Act, the detention must be he:" :.o Abdul Karim and others v. StGte of West Bengal ~1969] 3 s CR. 471?. and Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal [!970] 3 SC R "22· 5" re red on. ' · · · ' 69Z SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19'73] 1 S.C.R. Arun Kumar Roy Katu v. Stale of West Bengal, (Writ Pelition No. 52/1972) distinguished. Prof. Khaidem lbocha Singh v. The State of Manlpur, A.LR. 1972 S.C. 438 and Ran;it Singh v. S:ate of West Bengal (W.P. No. 14/1972 decided by Shela! and Khanna, J.J. on 24th April, 1972), referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 450 of 1971. Petition under article 32 of the Constitution for issue of. a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. R. K. Garg, for the petitioner. R. P. Kapur and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was dPlivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. By this application under Art. 32 of. the Constitution, the petitioner challenges his detention under s. 2-A of the Madhya Pradesh Public Security Act (Amendment Act) of 1970 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The District Magis- trate of Gwalior by his order dated May 26, 1971 under the said Act thought it necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds on which the deten- tion was sought to be justified were dated the same day and appear to have be.:n served on the detenu, though it is not apparent on what date those jOunds were served on hJll. As he was in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.