SHAMRAO VISHNU PARULEKAR versus THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 17-09-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
September 17 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
SHAMRAO VISHNU PARULEKAR 
v. 
THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, THANA 
(and connected petition) 
(S. R. DAS C. J., VENKATARAMA AYYAR, 
B. P. SINHA, S. K. DAS and GovINDA MENON JJ.) 
Preventive detention-Order of detention by the District Magis-
trate-Report sent to the State Government-Approval by the Statc-
Gro1tndsfor the order sent later-Validity of detention-" Grounds on 
which the order has been made", Interpretation of-Preventive Deten· 
tion Act, 1950 (IV of 19~0), ss. 8(2)(8), 7. 
Sub-section (3) of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, 
provides that when an order oJ detention is me.de under sub-Section 
(2) by an officer mentioned therein, he shall forthwith report the 
fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the 
order has been ma.de ... and no such order ... shall remain in force for 
more than twelve days alter the making thereof unless in the mean-
time it has been approved by the State Government. 
Under s. 7(1) "when a person is detained in pursuance of a 
detention order, the authority making the order shall ... communicate 
to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall 
afford him the earliest opportunity of makin~ a representation 
against the order to the appropriate Government' . 
The petitioners were arrested on 27th January 1956 in pursu-
ance of the orders of detention passed under s. 3(2) of the Preventive 
Detention Act, 1950, by the District Magistrate who sent his report 
the next day to the State Government which approved of the same 
on 3rd February 1956. Meantime, the grounds on which the orders 
of detention were made were formulated by the District Magistrate 
who furnished the same to the petitioners on 31st January 1956 
under s. 7 of the Act. A copy of these grounds was sent to the State 
Government on 6th February 1956. The petitioners challenged the 
validity of the detention and contended, inter alia, that as the 
expression "grounds on which the order bas been m&de" occurring 
in s. 3(3) is word for word, the same as in s. 7 of the Act, it must 
have the same ineaning a.nd as the copy of the grounds referred to 
in s. 7 had not been sent along with the report under s. 3(3) to the 
State Government before it had approved of the orders of detention 
there was a violation of the procedure prescribed by the statute and 
consequently the detention became illegal. It was found that the 
report sent by the District Magistrate set out not merely the fact of 
the making of the order of detention but also the materials on which 
he had made the order. 
Held, that the failure on the part of the District Magistrate to 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
645 
send a.long with his report under s. 3(3) the very grounds which he 
1956 
subsequently furnished the detenu under s. 7, is not e. brae.ch of the 
requirements of the.t sub-section and that it was sufficiently complied Shamrao Vis/111,. 
with when he reported the materials on which he made the order. 
Parulekar 
fl 
v. 
The scope and intendment of the expression the grounds on 
The Distrh·t 
which the order has been made" in ss. 3(3) e.nd 7 of the Act a.re Magistrate Thana 
quite different and it is not essential that the grounds which are 
' 
furnished to the detenu must have been before the State Govern-
ment before it approves of the order. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petitions Nos. 
100 
and 101 of 1956. 
Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution 
for writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus. 
N. 0. Chatterjee, Sadhan Chandra Gupta and 
Janardhan Sharma, for the petitioners. 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India, Porus 
A. Mehta and R.H. Dhebar, for the respondents. 
1956. 
September 17. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
v ENKATARAMA AYY AR J .-These are petitions under 
article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus. On 26th January 1956 
the District Magistrate, Thana, passed orders under 
section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 
1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the de-
tention of the petitioners~ and in execution of the 
orders, they were arrested on 27th January 1956. The 
next day, the District Magistrate sent his report to 
the State Government which on 3rd February 1956 
approved of the samE'. 
Meantime, on 30th January 
1956 the District Magistrate formulated the grounds 
on which the orders of detention were made, and the 
same were communicated to the pe

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