SURAJ PAL SAHU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 837 · Decided: 25-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~· 
,~ 
:...-.+ 
·~ 
\ 
A. 
.. 
SURAJ PAL SAHU 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 25, 1986 
[R.S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND 
RANGANATH MISRA JJ.) 
National Security Act, 1980-S. 3(2)-'-Detention Order-Detenu 
alfeady in Jail-Validity of detention order-Principles for determina-
tion of-Legal mala /ides explained. 
The delenn was arrested on December 17, 1985 pursuant to a 
detention order dated December 16, 1985 passed niider s. 3(2) of the 
National Security Act, 1980 and the grounds pf detention were served 
on him the same day_. It was all.eged in the order that since the year 1979 
the detenu had been continuously engaging himself in oommitting acts 
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the 
community, i.e., removing of permanent way material stocked aloug 
rail lines for maintenance of rail tracks, removing parts of carriages, 
wagons and signal telecommunication materials utilised for repair of 
railway wagons and maintenance of signals; that he used to arrange to 
remove railway property with the help of his 'gang' and stock the same 
in his godown, himself remaining behind the scence; that in a number of 
cases railway properties were loaded and carried away in a truck owned. 
by the detenu and, thus, the work of maintenance of the tracks was 
hampered and quick movement of the wagons loaded with essential 
commodities such as foodgrains, arms, ammunition required by the 
general public and the armed forces could not be made. 
The grounds indicated six different cases in which the detenu was 
involved, out of which in two cases he was acquitted and four cases were 
pending against him on the date of the passing of detention order. Each 
of the grounds indicated in the detention order individually·and collec-
lively was not only germane but also sufficient to satisfy the detaining 
authority with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any man-
ner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services· essential to 
the community and as such it was necessary to detain him. 
8J7 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
838 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11986] 3 S.C.R. 
The grounds were communicated to the detenu urider s. 8 of the 
Act read with Art. 22(5) of the Constitution. Copies of the documents 
mentioned in the detention order and placed before the detahting au-
thority were enclosed with the detention order sent to the detenu. The 
detenu was informed that he had a right to make a representation to the 
State Government against the order of detention, that he should ad-
dress it in the manner indicated therein, that the State Government 
would within three weeks from the date of detention make a reference to 
the Advisory Board constituted under s. 9 of the Act to make a report of 
detention and that he had right to make the representation to the Advis-
ory Board and if he wanted he would be heard in person by the Advisory 
Board if necessary. 
· 
A reference under s. 10 of the Act was n13de to the Advisory 
Board and the Advisory Board considered the representation dated 
January 8, 1986 of the detenu at the time of interviewing him on 
January 29, 1986. The Board submitted its report under s. 12(1) of the 
Act on February 3, 1986, which was received by the Government within 
the stipulated period of 7 weeks from the date of the detention, and the 
Government after considering the representation of the detenu and the 
report of the Advisory Board confirmed the defention order. 
The detenu challenged the detention order under Article 226 of 
the Constitution alleging: (i) that the order was mala fide; (ii) that there 
was total absence of material; and (iii) that in any event the provisions 
of National Security Act, 1980 were not attracted but the provisions of 
the Prevention of Black-marketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Es-
sential Commodities Act, 1980 would be attracted. 
A Division Bench dismissed the petition holding that permanent 
way material is essential to the maintenance of railway track and safety 
of the railway travelling public; that there were good grounds for deten-
tion and it was not possible to hold that there were no grounds of 
detention relevant for the Act; that only National Security Act was 
attracted in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 
In the Special Leave Petition and the Petition under Article 32, on 
behalf of the detenu it was contended; (i) that the grounds of detention 
were vague, irrelevant

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