STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. versus SANTOSH SHANKAR ACHARYA

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 01-08-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
v. 
SANTOSH SHANKAR ACHARYA 
AUGUST 1, 2000 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Criminal Law : 
Maharashtra Prevention ()f Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Boot-
leggers, Drugs Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 : 
Sections 3(2) and 8( 1 )-Preventive Detention-Right to make represen-
tation-To detaining authority-Non-communication of the same to detenu-
Effect ()(-Held, amounts to infraction of the detenu '.s rights under Art. 22(5)-
Hence, vitiates detention order-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention ()f Smuggling Activities Act, 
1974. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Redundancy-Rule of-Held, every part ()fa statute should be given 
~{feet to-A construction, which attributes redundancy to the legislature, can-
not be accepted . 
Maxims: 
"Ex majori cautela"-Applicability (){. 
The respondent-detenu was detained by an officer empowered by the 
State Government under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of 
Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Boot-leggers, Drugs Offenders and 
Dangerous Persons Act, 1981. While communicating the detenu the grounds 
of detention, it was not indicated therein that he had a right to make a 
representation to the Detaining Authority, though in the said communica-
tion it was mentioned that the detenu could make a representation to the 
State Government as provided under Section 8(1) of the Act .. 
The Full Bench of the High Court came to the conclusion that an 
order issued untler Section 3(2) of the Act could not remain valid for more 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
than 12 days unless the same was approved by the State Government as 
provided under Section 3(3) of the Act. It was further held that until the 
H 
67 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
order was approved by the State Government, the Detaining Authority 
retained the power of entertaining a representation and contd annul, re-
voke or modify the same as provided under Section 14(1) of the Act read 
with Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act. It was further held 
that failure on the part of the Detaining Authority in a case where order of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
detention was issued under Section 3(3) to the detenu that he had a right to 
make a representation constituted an infraction of the rights guaranteed 
under Article 22( 5), and as such, the detention became invalid on that 
score. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The only logical and harmonious construction of the 
provisions would be that in a case where an order of detention is issued by 
an officer under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Danger-
ous Activities of Slumlords, Boot-leggers, Drugs Offenders and Danger· 
ous Persons Act, 1981, notwithstanding the fact that he is required to 
forthwith report the factum of detention together with the grounds and 
materials to the State Government and notwithstanding the fact that the 
Act itself specifically provides for making a representation to the State 
Government under Section 8(1), the said detaining authority continues to 
be the detaining authority until the order of detention issued by him is 
a1>proved by the State Government within a period of 12 days from the 
date of issuance of the detention order. Consequently, until the said 
detention order is approved by the State Government the detaining au-
thority can entertain a representation from a detenu and in exercise of his 
power under the provisions of Section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses 
Act could amend, vary or rescind the order, as is provided under Section 
14 of the Act. Such a construction would give a full play to the provisions 
of Section 8(1) as well as Section 14 and also Section 3 of the Act. This 
being the position, non-communication of the fact to the detenu that he 
could make a representation to the detaining authority so long as the order 
of detention has not been approved by the State of Government in a case 
G 
where an order of detention is issued by an officer other than the State 
Government under Section .3(2) of the Act would constitute an infraction 
of a valuable right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. 
[74-G-H; 75-A-D] 
Kwnlesh Kumar ls/nvanlas Patel v. Union of India, [1995] 4 SCC 51, 
H 
followed. 
STATE v. S.S. ACHARYA [PATTANAIK, J.] 
69 
Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, [1982] 3 SCC 10, relied on. 
A 
State ()f Maharashtra v. Sushi/a Mafatla

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