LexSATYA DEO PRASAD GUPTA versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"854
SATYA DEO PRASAD GUPTA
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS,
November 27, 1974
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Pa1ventive detention-Duty of Officers of Government 1101 to mi;/ead Court
. -Unexplained ·delay in considering detenu's representation-Efjec1 of
Consfitution of India 1950, Art. 22(4)-Confirmation of detention wit/i a
•view to co11t!11ue beyo'!d 3 months-When should be made.
The District Magistrate issued an ordc:r of detention on June 11, 1974,
under s. 3(2)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directing
the de!ention of the petitioner and reported the fact to the State Governme:nt.
The petitioner Was arrested on July 11. 1974. The State Government approved
the order of the detention and referred the case to the Advisory Board on
August 9, 1974, On August 16, the representation of the petitioner was received
by the State Government and the State Government sent it immediately to
the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board reported on August 20 to the State
<Government that in its opinion there was sufficient cause to detaln the p:ti·
tioner. On November 15, the State Government rejected the representation
.of the petitioner and ,confirmed the order of detention, though, in the affidavit
,in reply filed on behalf of the respondent and sworn to by a Deputy Collector
.on October 14, it was stated that th~ State Government had already conside.red
.and rejected the petitioner's representation.
Allowing the petition challenging the petitioner's deteHtion,
HELD : (1) No words can be too strong to condemn the irre;ponsible
.. attitude of such a high placed Officer as the Depu.ty Collector in making a
false and misl4&ding statement on oath with a view to wresting a favourable
decision from the Court. [858C-DJ
(2) Where .there is inordina\e delay 011 the part of the State Government
'in considering the representation of a det11nu and no satisfactory explanation
is offered by the State Government for such delay, the constitutional obligation
'is violated int.I the detention is rendered invalid. The constitutional · requi.re-
ment of affording an opportunity to a detenu to make a representation against
the order of detention is intended to provide a safeguard aglinst improper or
unjustified exercise of the power of detention and it is for this reason that
1 his Court has always insi»ted that the representation of the detenn should be
considered promptly and without undue dday, so that, if it is found by the
detaining authority, on :considering_ the repre:sentation. that the grounds on which
the order of detention has been made are..i11..i;_orrect or non-existent or irrelev<int,
the detaining authority itself may cancel the· order of detentieR at the earliest
opportunity.
[~58E-859A]
In the present case, there was an inordinate delay of 3 months on the part
of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner
·am; the State 'Government had not offered any explanation for the delay.
[8:i8E-F]
Jaya11araya11 Suku/ v. State of West Bengal [1970] 3 S.C.R. 225, followed.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
(3) Under Art. 22(4) of the Constitution, the confirmation of the detention
with a view to continue it beyond a period of 3 months, on receipt of the
opinion of the ~dvisory Board, must be within 3 mont~s from the date of
detention. But, 111 the present case, the order of confirmation was made lnyond
H
3 months from the date of detention and therefore, the order of dete,1tion must
'be held to be invalid. I859E-HJ
D. S. Ray v. The Slate of West. Bengal A.l.R. 1972 S.C. 1924, followed.
SATYA DEO v. B~AR (Bhagwqti, J.)
855
A
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURI·sDICTION : Writ Petition No. 448 of
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1974.
Peti.tion under Article 32 of ti.., Constitution.
. ,
. D. P. SinJ?h. Raiesh Prasad SinJ?h and R. K. iain for the Peti-
tioner:
U. P. Singh
0
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. This is yet another instance where this Court is re-
luctently compelled to set free from detention a person believed to
be an economic offender. We had occasion to point out in an earlier
Judgment(') that economic offenders are a menace to tli~ society and
it is necessary in the interest of the economic well being of the com-
munity to mercilessly stamp out such pernicious, anti-sacral and highly
reprehensible activities as boarding, black-marketing and profiteering
which are causing havoc to the economy of thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.