SHYAMAL MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 517 · Decided: 01-09-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHYAMAL MONDAL 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
September 1, 1971 
, 
511 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM ~ 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] 
West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 19 of 1970, 
s. 3(1)-0rder under-Validity-Activities mentioned in s. 3(2) are b;v 
definition prejudicial to secrlr'ity· cf Sf-µte as well as to public order . 
• 
The petitioner was detained under an order dated March 2, 1971 
passed by the District .Magistrate, 
-4-Pargana, West Bengal, 
under 
sub-s. (i) read witl sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention 
of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. 
The order 'stated that the District 
Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner- shoold. -
be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner pre-
judicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order 
as provided ins. 3(1). In the grounds of detention ·supplied to the peti-
tioner three incidents of violence at railway stations in whl~ the peti-
tioner was.. alleged to have participated and used explosives \Vere men-
tioned. 
In his representations against being detained the petitioner did 
not allege any mala fides against the administration but only denied that 
he took part in the violent activities. 
In sup\iort of the writ petition 
under Art. 32 of the Constitution chaljenging the order of its detention 
it was urged that while the impugned order mentioned his activities as 
being prejudicial to public order as well as 
security of the State, 
the 
instances given in the grounds of detention only mentioned activities pre-
judicial to pu)>lic order. 
The detaining authority had thuS taken into 
account extraneous and irrelevant matters in paS'Sing the order of deten-
tion. According to the appellant it is only matters referred to in sub-c. (i) 
of cl. (a) of.$. 3(2) of.the Act which will relate to the activities adversely 
afiecting the security of the State, and none of these matters had been 
mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner. 
HELD : The contention of the petitioner that it is only sub-cl. (1) 
of cl. (a) of l!. 3(2) which deals with matters adversely affecting the 
security of the- State could not be accepted. 
In fact that very sub-
ctau.se refers to the matters herein as affecting the security of the State 
or the maintenance .of public order. Therefore in this case the grounds 
of deteRtion could not be held to be vague nor could the order of detel<· 
tion be held to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner must hl!ve 
been detained only to prevent him from acting in any manner ptejudlcial 
to the maintenance of public order and not to the security of the State. 
lo particular under cl. ( d} of s. 2 a person will be considered to be· 
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State dr the main-
tenance of public order, if be commits any offence under the &plosivp 
Suootaoces Act, 1908. 
The various incidents· mentioned in the grounds 
of detention may also come under cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3. Further 
the said grounds clearly bring the activities of the petitione'r under s. 3 
of the &plosive Substances Act. [523 H-524 E] 
Accordingly the detention of the petitillner must be held to be valid· 
and the petition under Art. 32 must be dismissed. 
' 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 205 of 1971. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ 
in the nature of habeas corpus. 
518 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1972) 1 S.C.R. 
Y. Mayakrishnan, for the petitioner. 
A 
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu, for die 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vatdialingam, J. 
This petition under Art. 32 of the 
B 
Constitution challenges the validity of the order dated March 2, 
1971 passed by the District ~agistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of 
the powers conferred on him under sub-section ( 1) read with 
·sub-section( 3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent 
Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX of 1970 (hereinafter to be 
referred as the Act), directing the detention of the petitioner. 
The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was 
satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained 
with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial 
to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as 
provided by s. 3 (1) of the Act. 
c 
According to the affidavit in reply of the District Magistrate, 
D 
he reported u

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