LexSHRIMATI VIDYA VERMA, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND R>V>S MANI versus DR. SHIV NARAIN VERMA.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 983 ment before us that those rights are sought to be agitated. Under the circumstances, we must decline to consider them. It will be suflicient if we observe that the rights of the appellants, if any, other than those arising out of the lease, are left open to the determinati9n of the appropriate authorities, and that nothing in our decision should be taken as a pronouncement on those rights. In the result, the ap~al fails and is dismissed with costs. SHRIMATI VIDYA VERMA, THROUGH NEXT FRIEND R. V. S. MANI v. DR. SHIV NARAIN VERMA. [S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI. fAGANNADHA· oAs and B. P. SINHA JJ.l Fundamental Ri[!ht, Infringement of-Detention by private per- son-ls.iue of writ-Power of Supreme Court-Constitution of [ndia, Arts. 21, 3:t. No question of infringement of any fundamental right under Art. 21 arises where the detention complained of is by a private per- >On and not by a State or under the authority or orders of a State. and the Supreme Court will not, therefore, entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus, under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Consequently a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus founded on Art. 21 and directed against a father for alleged detention of his daughter does not lie. A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras ([1950] S.C.R. 88) and P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank. of India ([1952] S.C.R. 391), re- lied on. ORIGINAL JuR1so1cT10N : Petition No. 262 of 1955. Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Habeds Corpus. R. V. S. Mani. the next friend, in person. M. C. Setal.vad, Attorney-General for India (G. N. Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him). N aunit Lal, for the respondent. 1955 Raj Bahadur Kanwar Raj .Nath and 0th.rs v. Pramod C. Bhatt., Custodian of Evacuee Properey Venkatarama Ayyar ]. 1955 .November 11 1955 Shrimati Vi<lya V mna, through Lnext friend R., V. S. Mani v. Dr. Shiv Narain Verma 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1955. November 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J .-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus. The peti- tion was presented by Mr. R. V. S. Mani, an advocate of the Nagpur High Court, on behalf of Shrimati Vidya Verma and was directed against her father Dr. Shiv Narayaq Verma of Nagpur. Mr. Mani had no power of attorney from the lady and when the office pointed out that he could not present a petition without producing the necessary authority he amended the petition and described him- self as the next friend of the lady. When the matter first came up for hearing we directed a notice to issue to the father but later the same day it was brought to our notice that the op- posite party was not either the Union of India or a State, nor wa~ it some official acting under the orders of one or the other, but a private person. The ques- tion therefore arose of our power under article 32 to issue a writ of. this kind against a private party. Ac- . cordingly, before the notice was sent out we recalled it and set the matter down for further hearing. Mr. Mani appeared again on the appointed date and was robed as he had been on the previous occasion. He was asked to clarify his position and when he said he had no power of attorney and explained that he was appearing in a private capacity as next friend he was told that at the next hearing he must address the Court without his robes. He was also warned that if he lost he might have to bear the costs of the other side personally. After hearing Mr. Mani for a time we decided to fix a date for the hearing of a prelimi- nary question only, namely, whether a fundamental right is involved when the detention complained of is by a private person and not by a State or under the authority or orders of a State. We directed that notices be issued to the .opposite party as well as to the Attorney-General of India. At the adjourned hearing Mr. Mani appe;ired in per- son, unrobed as directed, but with the advocate on 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 985 record sitting by his side. He asked for permission to address us himself. We declined to hear him un- less he discharged the advocate on record. He did that on the spot and then proceeded to address us in person. As the question that arises here has been discussed at length in two earlier decisions of this Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.