NIZAMUDDIN versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 05-11-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
0 
E 
F 
H 
NIZAMUDDIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
November S, 1974 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD AND P. N, BHAGWATI, JJ,] 
593 
Preventive Detenl/011-De/ay in arresting detenu pursuant to order of 
detention-Duty of' detaining authority to explain, 
On 14th .April, 1973, the petitioner was ·alleged. to have committed theft 
of aluminium wire and a criminal case was filed but it was ultmately dropped 
and the petitioner was discharged, because, 'the witnesses were not willing to 
give evidence for fear of danger to their life. On 10th September, 
1973, 
the District Magistrate passed an order under s. 3(2)(·i) of the· Maintenanee 
of Internil Security Act, 1971, detainin$ the petitioner wtth a view to prevent-
ing him from acting in a manner preiudiciil to the maintenance .of supplies 
and services essential to the community, on his subjective satisfaction, based 
upon the solitary incident of the theft of aluminium wire. The petitioner was 
~tually detained on 23rd November, 1973. 
· 
Allowing the petition challengin11 the order of detention, 
HELD : The condition precedent for the making of tho. order of deten-
tion, namely the existence of a real and aeauine subjective 1&tiafae&ion of tho 
l>istrict Maliatrate was not satisfied in the c:aae1 and conaequontly, the order 
pf detention must be quashed and set aside. [5:160-EJ 
(a) It must be ll88Ullled that the petitioner was dilcharpd on or abouJ 
10th September 1973, becalile, tho District Magistrate mus~ have made the 
order of detenilon in anticipation of the order of discharge. If that was so, 
though the petitioner waa available for detention, there was a delay of about 
two and half months In detainin11 the petitioner punuant to the order of 
detention. This delay, unless satisfactorily explAined, would · throw 
consi-
derable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District 
Magistrate recited in the order ·of detention. If the I)iitrlct Magistrate waa 
really and genuinely satisfied he would· have llCted with greater promptitude. 
But he has not offered any explanation as to why the petitioner was no• 
detained until 23rd November, 1973, more than two months after he mado 
the order of detention. [59SD-HJ 
(b) It is the obligation of the State or the detaining authority 'In making 
its return to the role nlsi, in cases· of habeas corpus, to place all the relevant 
facts before the court and if there is any delay in arresting the detenu 
pursuant to Ille order of detention, which is prlma faclt unreasonableil the 
State inust explain tho delay. The State cannot contend that tho po !loner 
has not raised the contention in his petition. [596B-C) 
Sii. Sera,ul v. Stat§ o/ Wiit Btngal. W.P. 2000 of 1973, decided on September 
9, 1974, fo lowed. 
. 
OJUOINAL APPBI.LA.TB J\lluSJ>ICTION: Writ Petition Nq. 315> of 
1974. 
Petition under Article 32 of· the Conatltutlon. 
A.nil KUllUl1' Gupta, for the 2,Clitlo!ier. · 
P. Chatter/et and G. S. Chatterjee, tor the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAGwAn, J. The 'petitioner challel)ges his detention under an 
order dated 10th September, 1973 made by the District Magistrate, 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1975] 2 S.C.R. 
Burd wan under section 3 (2) (i) of the Maintenance of Internal Se· 
curity Act, 1971. There were several grounds urged before us for 
challenging the validity of the order of detention but it is not neces-
sary to refer to them since we find that there is one ground which is 
sufficient to dispose of the petition. To appreciate this ground it 
is necessary to notice a few facts. 
The order of detention was made on 10th September, 1973 and 
it was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate 
that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent-
ing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
supplies and services essential to the community. 
This. subjective 
satisfaction according to the grounds of detention funushed to the 
petitioner' was founded on a: solitary incident of theft of alumunium 
wire alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on 14th April, 
1973. It appears that in riespect of this incident a criminal case was 
tiled inter alia against the petitioner in the Court of Sub-Divisional 
Judicial Magistrate, Asa.nsol, but, as the affidavit-in-reply filed by 
the District Magistrate shows, the witnesses were unwilling to depose 
against the petitioner in open Court on account of fear of dange

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