LexPRADIP KUMAR DAS & ORS. versus STA TE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
\ ' •
327
A
PRADIP KUMAR DAS & ORS.
v.
STA TE OF WES·T BENGAL & ORS.
April 29, 1974
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAM!, P. K. GOSWAMI
B
AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
c
D
E
F
G
Maintc1wnce of Internal Security Act (26 of 1971) s. 14-Release as a result
of decision of this Court-Fresh order of detention 011 identical facts-If valid.
The petitioners were detained under
the Maintenance of Internal Security
Act, 1971, <ifter they had been rc'.eased as a result of the decision of this Court
in Shan1bhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal [19741 1 S.C.R. 1, on the same
grounds as in the earlier orders of detention. The petitioners challenged the or-
ders in petitions under Art. 32 on the ground of violation of s. 14 of the Act.
Allowing the petitions,
HELD : The contention of the respondent-state that the previous- orders we1e
illega1 and that therefore the release orders did not amount to revocation is un·
sound.
The expression 'revocation' includes not only revocation of an order
which is otherwise valid and operative but also orders which are invalid.
The
word means 'annulling, rescinding withdrawing.'
Further, the
word
·expire'
means 'to ;;ome to an end, or to put an end to, or to terminate, or to becom:.:
void, or to become extinct.' The orders of release show that the Government
accepted th~ position that the Previous orders came to end and released the peti·
tioners.
Therefore, the orders of release were orders of revocation of the pre·
vious orders of detention; and the previous orders of detention also expired when
the respondent passed orders of release. Under s. 14 a det2ntion order may be
revoked or modified at any ti1ne, and the revocation or expiry of the detention
order shall not bar the making of a fresh order of detention where fresh facts
have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on '\Yhich the Government is
satisfied that such an order should be made.
But in the present case, the fresh
orders of detention contained identical grounds as in the earlier order~. There·
fore. the fresh orders are in violation of s. 14.
[324l{-325A, E-G; 326C-E]
Harihandftu Das v. District Magi.st.rate Cuttack & Anr. [196CJ1 l S.C.H .. 227, -
Ujjal ¥and~! v. _State of West Benga(, [1972] 3 S.C.R. 165, M(lsovd Alan-1 etc.
v. l)111on OT India & Ors. A.LR. 1973 S.C. 897, Mrinal Rov v. State of West
Bengal & Ors. [1973] 2 S.C.C. 822 and Chotka Hembran1 v. ·state of West Ben~
gal & Ors. A.LR. 1974 S.C. 432, referred to.
ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 961. 1339, 1622 etc. etc. of 1973.
Petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India.
H. C. Mittal, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 961/73)
D. Gobardhun, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 1339/73)
Ragl1ubir Malhotra, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 1662/73)
iV. K. ARarwal, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 1636/73)
M. R. K. Pillia, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 1656 /73)
Maya Krishnan, for the petitioner (in W.P. No. 1666/73)
H
.F. S. f>/arinian, Addi. Solicitor Genera! (in W.P. No. 1339/73) _D. P. C'haudhury,
(1n W.:.P. No. 961/73) D. N. Jvfukher1t:e
and
S. C. Afa"Z.111n:iar, (in W.P. No.
1339/ 13), P. K. Chakravorty, (in W.P. No. 1636/73) Dilip Sinha (in W.P. No.
1622/73) and S1tk11n1nr Basu, for the respondents {in all the W.PS.)
-177Sup C. 1.;75
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] l S.C.R.
For the petition_s: By an order dated 26-10-72, the District Magistrate, made
A
an order of detention under s. 3 ( 1) read with s. 3 (2) of the Maintenance
of
Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971.)
After the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Sambu Nath Sarkar's case, the
petitioner was released
But on the very same day bv an order of detention the
District Magistrate detained the petitioner under s. '3(i) read withs. 3(2). The
ground of detention and the facts on which the order of detention was based
were t~e same as in the previous order of detention.
The second order of detention comes within the mischief of s. 14(2) of the Act.
Jn Haribandhu Das v. Distt. Magistrate, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 217 at 222 though this
Hon'ble Court interpreted the provisions of Preventive
Detention Act,
1950,
the ratio of the said decision app}jes propriovigvre to the provisions of the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, which are in pari nzateria with 1he
provisions of the 1950 Act.
In this case also, the order of detention made by the Magistrate, not having
been followed up by the orderExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.