SMT. ARUNA KUMARI versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 973 · Decided: 11-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
... \..__ 
.....-f 1 
SMT. ARUNA KUMARI 
A 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS. 
NOVEMBER 11, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
B 
Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of 
Essential Commodities Act, 1980: sections 3 and 14-Detenu-A 
contractor-Levy cement meant for use in railway construction work-
Diverted for private construction work-Contractor detained for acting 
in a manner prejudicial to maintenance of essential supplies-Validity C 
of detention order. 
Detention order-Delay in passing of-Not by itself a vitiating 
factor-Court cannot examine probative value of evidence available to 
detaining authority-Court cannot examine propriety or sufficiency of 
grounds of detention-Detenu has no right to get his successive re-
D 
presentations based on the same grounds rejected earlier to be formally 
disposed of again. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Section 161-Statement of 
, ~· 
detenu accepting allegations against himself-Whether can be relied 
--
upon for purposes of preventive detention. 
E 
The husband of the petitioner had been detained by an order 
dated 15th May, 1987 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Black-
marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 
1980. The grounds served on the detenu for making the detention order 
alleged that the detenu had undertaken contract works of various types F 
under the South Central Railway, and indulged in clandestine business 
of diversion of levy cement meant for use in the Masonary Ballast Wall 
alongwith the railway track, and had thus acted in a manner prejudicial 
to the maintenance of supplies of cement, an essential commodity. 
The facts mentioned, that on the receipt of information that levy G 
cement was being transferred into non-levy bags for its dh·ersion to 
works not intended, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cell made a 
surprise visit, and found that the information passed on to him was 
correct. He conducted a raid and recovered 400 bags of levy cement. A 
criminal case under Clauses 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Levy 
Cement Distribution (Licensing and Regulation) Order, 1982 read with 
H 
973 
974 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] I S.C.R. 
A Section 7 and 8 of the Essential Commodities, Act, 1955 was commen-
)lo'·' 
ced and further investigation proceeded. Both the detenu and his 
servant absconded and were ultimately arrested on 18th March, 1987 
when the detenu confessed before the Inspector of Police. The detenu 
was released on bail the following day, i.e. 19th March, 1987. On the 
consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, the District Magistrate 
Ill 
was of the opinion that the mere launching of a criminal case against the 
c 
detenu would not effectively prevent him from acting in a manner pre-
)· 
judicial to the maintenance of supplies of cement, and therefore, 
ordered detention, which order was later confirmed by the Advisory 
Board. 
-.
The detenu filed his first representation on 20th May, 1987 
which was rejected by the State Government as also the Advisory Board 
later. 
i 
,_.-/... 
; ,_ 
A writ petition was filed before the High Court on 18th June, 1987 
challenging the detention order, while the writ petition in this Court 
D was filed on 13th June, 1987. 
A second representation on behalf of the detenu was filed by bis 
cousin on 5th June, 1987 for revocation of the detention order. This 
representation remained unattended, until the State Government re-
minded the Central Government in this regard after filing of the writ 
y" 
E 
petition in this Court, and it was only then that the Central Government 
rejected the same on 2nd September, 1987, 
F 
G 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 18th July, 1987. 
--
In the Special Leave Petition as also the writ petition under Art. 32 
the order of detention was challenged on the grounds of (1) delay of 
about 5 months in passing the order, (2) the allegation against the --<-
detenu of diverting levy cement for private use was incorrect, (3) the 
second representation filed by the detenu's cousin remained undisposed 
by the Central Government for about 3 months, ( 4) the sponsoring 
officer's default in not placing relevant facts before the detaining 
authority before the impugned order was passed, and (5) the detention 
order was passed on the basis of a solitary incident. 
Dismissing the Writ Petition and Special Leave Petition, 
HELD: I. Delay cannot by itsdf vitiate the decision to detain a 
tt person. [

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