PRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC. versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 11-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

12 
pRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE DISTRICT MAGISRATE, K.AMRUP & ORS. 
. 
October ll. 1973. 
[K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] 
. 
1 InterMI Security Act, !971, s. 3(2}(e)-One of _the groulldJ 
Mamt~11anct 0 
V /'dity of dctemion-Dclay by Governmcllt m 
r~ccting 
o/ dettntwn l'D8Ue- a 1 
tlttrnu'J rtpresrntation-Effect. 
Th 
titioner were detained by orders under'· 3(2) (a)_ of the Ma.in~nance 
of Int;r~~ Security Act, 1971. The fm;_t grou?~ of dctcnuon sta~d tb~t the 
petitioners "ere responsible for una.uth~nseo.i m1lhng o( paddy and sn~uggilng the 
resultant rice to Megbalaya for sclhng 11 at l!~due pr~?llt. The 
pcuuon~r, liellf 
representations to the State Goyernment rrusmg vanous groun~ aga111>t 
tb~ 
validity or the order.~ of detenuon. The State Government rcJec.tcd the rep~· 
sentations. But even before that, and wben the matter was pcndmg before the 
Advisory Board. the petitioners filed petitions und.:r Art. 32 for the issue or a 
writ of habf'OS. corpus. It was contended !but, (i) the 11rounds aiven in the 
detention orders were vagUe and indefinite that therefore the constitutional right 
or making a rrpro:sentation against the detention order was defeated and hence 
the dct<n_tioo. orJ~rs were vitiaJed; (ii) _there WJs inordi_n~te delay by the Gov. 
ernment m d1sposmg of the rcprcseotalions or the pehUoncrs· and 
(iii) 
the 
det~ining authorities had not llpplied their minds to the facts ~r the case, with 
a v1ew to detc1_11lining the nec:d for detaining the petitioners for pre,·enting 
theJm fr~m acttng .m nny mann.:r prejudicial to the maint~nancc of supplie$ 
~n M:r\1Ct1 e""l'nllal to the ·community. 
li£1.0 : (Ptr Mathew nnd Mukherjca, JJ) 
Ci) The first ground !>( deteoti 0 
arc \"it:.~ and th~ petitioners lire ~nt"~~ vlngbue nn1d hence th<> detentioru ord~rt 
( 
The 
. 
1 c 
o e rc ~ased from custody. [ISG-HJ. 
3 J 
requtremcot of Art. 22 ( s) of th C 
. . 
. 
. 
• 
u~<'>S lhe detcnu ;, Given the earli<:st 0 
e . onstllutton wdf not 00 satc;~~d 
ag;u~t h1> dctcnuon, and no 0 
rt 
_pportumty to make a 
r~prcscntauoo 
elfccuve unles. the det.enu is fu~ umty_ to make the reprcsentauvn can ~ 
£rour><Js of detention. [20.4.-B]. 
ed wuh adequate particular.~ of all 
th~ 
. 
!b~ The fi~•t ground postulated th· 
. , 
Jautltonsed mdhns of paddy and a/jo t' the PC!IIIoner.s were indulgint: in 
UD· 
p~~ !~;;,~~~~~ ~h~ue p~ofit. lt ;. an" i~~~~-g~~~~1th~ resultant ric.: to Mq;h~-
~':~t~~~g thf resultaor~~o~r
5~1~~h:;I~·.1 un~~thorise! ~~~fn:'~f ~!~:?r :~d ~~ 
the purposee d{e~l!onen were rcsponsibl~ 'for w~ not. a ta.~e where the grounJ 
proftt, io which ~ggl!ng the r~uhant rice t~nMuthhr:'cd milling of paddy for 
"'~r~ not ~<vailable ~u:lt c?uld have been said th:t· :: a~a. for earning undue 
milling was for s~u lin hat II' was a natural infer. pan,culars about smusclin~ 
lc) Tb 
. 
gg 
g. 
!l~D·FJ 
•nee that the unauthoriscJ 
c· · d 
0 l'Criod durin& \\h" h 
. ~r!le on was not ~ta 
. 
" 
the unautho . . 
. . 
todJcatc \~-hen. lind h<>wlc~ tn the J~round~ of ~~~~ed. rrulhng .of paddy h~d been 
~~:'}\g:nl!~'!ed tlte sei~r~~:tu,_t~ rice wa., s~~~~~fe~or ts thae IUIYtbing tll 
,,f paddy oP<llhofl(On but gav~ n pa dy untl rice from 
to Mc!(h.llaya. 
Tbe 
une or th r the smuggling of tJ 0 rartlculme 11.'1 rc . 
the unauthorised poss.:s· 
...:izcd fro~t ~(
1ound• Dlcntiuncd t~~1re•ultllnt rice t~.~~js ~j unauthocb.~J millios 
k~d to rhc inf~runoutht>ris.cd PO'i1o(}atldy und rice haeg a ~~a. The fact 
tb~t 
rnolltng ur padt! ;nee that the pcliti ton of the !>Clition~ been uncarthcJ anJ 
Me¥h;•1Aya for ~~,~~~·:h les1 th:at th~;crs h~tl been ind"u? ,.woul~ uot n~.:(o;s,lrily 
(d) \ 
~ Undue profit r wer~ Slnu~lllin 
Jo;tng 
tn 
unauthorised 
'"&ue th~ ~~ne ~~ lbe ground\ 
· 
1 MP-G;-20E-Fj g 
the rcsulc;tnl rke to 
that if tbe fi~~tloQ ordtr"l mu,t ~nununi<:atcd to 
.. 
th~ order of dct:~ti~~J wli ~.\clul!Jr~houncc~ .b:t~~e ft''llllvner.. i~ founJ ,to be 
· 
OC, E) 
c detltlnm11 auth c~uld not be: predicated 
Onty wouiJ h,l\·e pa~sed 
A 
B 
( 
0 
l. 
F 
li 
l 
., 
f I 
r 
I 
( 
I 
P. D. DEOR•'"H V. DIST. l'l'lAGISTRATE 
13 
A 
Ke~hi1v Talpade v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 FC p. 1 (p. 8),' Dr. &m Krisharr 
Bhardwaj '!· The Stare of Delhi & Ors.; [1953) S.C.R. p. 708, Motilal Jain 
'Y. 
State of 111/wr & Ors. [1968] 3 S.C.R. p. 587, Mishrila/ lain v. The Di3trlct 
Magistrtlle, Kamrup & Vrs. [ l 971) 3 S.C.R. p. 693 State of Bombay v 
Alma 
c 
() 
F 
G 
ll 
Ram Sridhar Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 167. 
' 
·

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