S. K. KEDAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 488 · Decided: 02-05-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

488 
S.K.KEDAR 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAi, 
May 2, 1972 
A 
lP. ]A(JANMOlli\N REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
B 
West Bengal (Prevention of 
s. 11-'Puolic order', scope of 
detenu in ."'erson-Sco~"e of 
Violent Activities) Act (19 of 1970), 
Advisory Board's 
obligation to 
'hear 
In exercise of the powers conferred under s. 3(1) and (3) of the 
West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activitio;is) Act, 1970 the District 
Magistrate passed an order detaining the petitioner with a view to prevent 
( 
him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order. 
The grounds of detention were that he along with his associate 
attacked the Railway Police Force with bombs and created disturbance 
of public orcb. After his arrest the case was i:eferred to the Advisory 
Board and · the Board, after considering the entire material before it. 
reported to the State Government that there was sufficient cause for the 
o~tention of the petitionc. On the same day hi) sent a representation 
that he may be heard in person which the Board received two days later. 
D 
The Board however heard him, found no reason to revise its opinion, and 
sent a supplementary report to that effect. 
The petitioner challenged the detention in this C.ourt. 
Dismissing the petition, 
HI;lLD : (I) The qu,cstion whether a person has only committed a 
E· 
lireach of Jaw -and ordt.!r or has acted in a manner likely to cause distur-
bance of t!JJ, public <Xder is om of degree and the extent r; the reach 
of tho act upon society. The act by itself is not determinative of its 
own gi-avity. 
In its quality it may not di1for from another but in its 
potentiality it may be very different. 
Similar acts in different contexts 
effect differently law and order on the one hand and public order on 
the other. It is always a question of degree of the harm and its effect 
on the community. In the final analysis it depends on the facts of each· 
F 
cose whether the acts prepetrated are such a nature of po:entiality. 
[441D-Gl 
Pushkar Mukherjee and others v. The State of West Bengal, (1969) 
2 S.C.R. 635, Sudhir Kumar Saha v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta 
and another A.l.R .. 1970 S.C. 814 and Ndgendra Nath Monda! v. 
The 
State of West Bengal, [1972) S.C.R. 498 and Arun Ghosh v. 
State W. Bengal. A.l.R. 1970 S.C. 1228, referred to. 
G 
In the p1esent case, the acts attributed to the petitioner are such as 
would bring them within the ambit of s. 3(2) (b) and (d) of the Act. 
.Attacking the Railway Police Force party with bombs at the railway 
station was bound to cause scare among all the mombers of the public 
who would be resorting to the station yard and interfere with their acti-
vities in getting the goods loadc<l or unloaded. The acts had the poten-
tiality of affecting the even tempo of the life of the community in the 
H 
locality hv thdr reverberations. 
Therefore, the grounds communicated 
to the petitioner .disclosed that he indulged in an activity which was 
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order [491 G·H, 492A-B] 
s. K. KEDAR v. WES!' BENGAL (Mathew, J.) 
4811 
A 
(2) Section I I of the Act providts that t+ie Advisory Boord may give 
personal bearing if it. considers it CSE.ential or if the person _concerned 
desires to be beard. In tlm care, the Board did not COllSlder 1t essential 
to hear the peti<ionor in person before submitting its. report. But when 
petitioner sent a ropresentation that he may k heard m person the Board 
heard him bofor.o submitting the supplementary report. Therefore, the 
petitioner cannot contend that he was not personally heard before the 
ll 
Board submitted its opinion. [492E-Gl 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 35 of 1972. 
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the 
nature of habeas corpus. 
S. K. Gambhir, for the petitioner. 
P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatter;ee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Mathew, J. This is an application filed under Article 32 of the 
Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus 
and to release the petitioner who is alleged to be in illegal custody. 
In the exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) 
read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the West Bengal (Preven-
tion of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970), 
hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', the District Magistrate, 24 
Parganas, passed an order on July I 0, 1971, detaini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.