SK. SEKAWAT versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1975] 2 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 24-09-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SK. SEKAWAT 
v. 
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
Sep_tember 24, 1974 
,161 
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, P. N. BHAGWATI, P .. K. GOSWAMI AND 
B 
R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Mai11te11a11ce. of Internal Security Ac!z 1971-S. 3,-representat!o11 received 
after t11e receipt of opinion of A.dvlsory, l10llTd but befqre con{irmat/011 of order 
by Governmem-Whet/ier Government bound to consider 1/1e representation. 
The petitioner who was detained· under s. 3 of t.he Maintenance cf Internal 
Securi.ty Act, 1971 submitted a representation against the order of detention 
· after the .Advisory Board had submitted i~ report but before the State Govern· 
C · 
ment confirmed the order. Without considerin~ the representation, however, 
the State Government confirmed the order· of detention and thereafter 
con· 
sidered and rejected the representation. 
D 
E 
G 
In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution it was contended that t)le 
order confirming the detention havin2 been passed without considering· the 
repres.entation the detention was unlawful. 
· 
Allowing the petition, 
I 
HELD : The contention has great force and it must ·result in the detention . 
of the potitioner being set aside. 
So long as the representatio11 is re~ived with-
in 30 days from the date of detention the ~ate Government would be bound · 
to forward it to the Advisory Board. Even. where the Ad·visory ·Board reports · 
that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu, the State Govern· 
ment is not bound to confirm the .order of detention. 
The State Government 
has to apply its mh1d a!ld come to its own decision whether or not lei· confirm " 
the order of detention. If the State Government has before it at that time the .. 
representation of the detenu it must consider it and take it into account for the 
purpose of deciding whether to confirm and continue the detention. [162 F; 
·163 H; 164 D] 
. 
In the instant case the representation was received before : the- order ~f 
detention was confirmed. 
By not considering the representation the Government 
failed in one of its obligatory duties with regard to detention Clf the peti· 
tioner. 
Jayanarayan Sukut v. State of West Bengal [1970] '3 .§.C.R. 225 and 
B. 
Sunder Rao & Ors. v. State of Orissa, [1972] 3 S.C.C. 11 followed. 
·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ PetiHon .No. 164 of 1974. 
:Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. 
Hira LAI Jain, for the petitioner. 
Laila Seth a.nd G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
BHAGW ,m, J.-This petition is directed against the validity of an 
order of detention dated 26th July, 1972 
made 
by 
the District 
H . Magistrate, Midnapur under section 3 of the .Maintenance of Internal 
Security Act, 1971. The petitioner has urged several grounds before 
us, but it is not ,necessary to refer to them since there is one ground 
, Which is, in our opinion, sufficient to dispose of the petition in favour 
2-L2St Sup.Cl/7S. 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] 2 s.c.R. 
· of the petitioner. To appreciate this ground it is necessary to notice 
a tew facts. 
The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on 
:26th July, 1972 and on the same day he made a report to the St~te 
Government. The State Government approved the order of detention 
on -5th August, 1972 and a report was mad,e by it to ~~e Central 
Government on the same day. It appears that the pettt10ner was 
absconding and he could not, therefore, be arrested pursuant !~ the 
order of detention until 24th October, 1972. 
When the petit10p.er 
was arrested on 24th October, 1972, the order of detention was 
served 
on him along with the grounds of detention. 
The State 
Government· thereafter placed the case of the petitioner bef~re the 
Advisory Board for its opinion and the Advisory Board submitted. a 
report dated 23rd November, 1972 stating that in its opinion there 
was sufficie~ cause for the detention of the petitioner. 
Now, right 
up to this time no representation against the order of detention was 
received from the petitioner .. It was only on 27th November, 1972 
that the State Government received the representation of the· petitioner 
against the order of detention. 
The State Goverll'21ent had not yet 
confirmed the order of detention when the representation was received 
but even so the State Government proceeded to confirm the order 
of detention without consideri,ng the r_epresentation. 
The order of 
confirmation was passed by the State

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