LexSK. IBRAHIM versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ .• A B c D E F G H 803 SK. IBRAHIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. December 19, 1973 [H. R. KHANNA AND M .. H. BEG, JJ.] Maintenance of Jnternal Security Act, 1911 (Act 26 of 1911)-D•tentlon under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to the niaintenance of supplies and services essential to ·the co1nmunily-:Held, on facts that the grou,uls were not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation. The detention order served on the petitioner stated that. on three different dates be along with his associates was found to have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently atlacked the anti-smuggling party and disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The representation of the deteau was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejected the representation on Jllne 4, 1973 and forwarded the samQ to the Advi~ •ory Board. The Advisory Board by their report dated July 11, 1973, held that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On July 30, 1973, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The detention was inter alia challenged on the ground of delay and vagueness of grounds. Dismissing the writ petition,· HELD: (1) The State Government received the representation on June 2, 1973 and rejected the same on June 4, 1973. There was no delay in tho dispasal of the representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of aubmissioa of the representation and its actual disposal. [804 H] (2) The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein ncce.uary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars in ink were filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order. There · was no evidence to prove the allegation. [805 C] (3) The date, time and place of each of the incidents were specified in the· grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise the petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the detention orderbad been made. Th.e fact that the.names of the associates of the petitionea were not mentioned in the &rounds of detention would not ao to show that they suffered from the infirmity of vagueness. The Coqrts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the pre<.:ise •ctivi~y on account of which he is being detained 150 as to enable him to make an Cffective representation. [806C] ' O!UG!NAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in the nature of habetp corpus. · __.. S. C: Maiumdar and A. Madan, ior the petitioner. Sukwnar Ghosh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by· KHANNA, J. The District .Ma£istrate of Hooghly pa,sed an order. on May 9. 1973 under sub-section (1) .read with. sub-section (2)'C of section 3 of the Maintenance of Intern'al Securiiy Act, 1971 (Aclt: 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 2 S.C.B. No. 26 of 1971 \ for the dete11tion of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting i_n any m~nner prejukiicial ~ the mainte- nance of supplies and services essential to the commumty. In pur- suance of the detentfon onler, the petitioner was arrested on May 14, 1973 antl was served with the order of detention as also the grounds :if lletention together with vernacular translation thereof. Report abo~t the. making of ·the· detention oirder was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Gover'nment and the said Govermnent ap- proved the detention ord;_r on May 18, 1973. The case C>f the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Boa.II by the State Gov- ernment on June 5, 1973. !he petitioner sent a representation a~ainst his detention and the same was received by the State Govern- ment on June 2. 1973. The State Government rejeCted the repre- sentation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board after considering the representation and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the State Gov- ernment on. July 11, 1973. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was suffiCient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On Julv 30. 1973 the State Government co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.