THE STATE OF BOMBAY versus ATMA RAM SRIDHAR VAIDYA

Citation: [1951] 1 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 25-01-1951 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HARILAL JEKISUNDAS KANIA

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
167 
not communicate it to the first defendant. This state-
ment is supported by the cable of the 26th August and, 
if Youngman can be said to have had any leaning at 
all, it was certainly in favour of the plaintiff. In these 
circumstances, it would be 
difficult 
to 
hold 
that 
Youngman had deliberately misdescribed the plaintiff's 
acceptance of the counter-offer as his offer in the 
cable which he sent on the 26th August to the first 
defendant. 
It seems to us that the view taken by the Judicial 
Commissioner is not correct, and, as there was no 
concluded contract, the decree passed by him awarding . 
compensation to the plaintiff for breach of contract 
cannot be sustained. We therefore allow the appeal, 
set aside the judgment and dtcree of the Judicial 
Commissioner and dismiss the plaintiff's suit. 
Having 
regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no 
order as to costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant : M. S. K. Sastri. 
Agent for the respondent: Rajinder Narain. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
ATMA RAM SRIDHAR VAIDYA 
[SHRI HARILAL KANIA C.J., SAIYID FAZL ALI, 
PATANJALI SAsTRr; MuKHERJEA, DAs and 
CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.) 
Constitution of fodia, Arts. 21, 22 (5)-Preventive detention 
-Duty to communicate grounds and to afford opportunity to make 
representation-Whether 
distinct rights-Ground supplied 
vague 
-Non-supply of particulars or supply of particulars at later st.7ge 
-Whether vitiates dttention-furisdiction 
of court to consider 
sufficiency of grounds-Preventive Detention A.ct (IV of 1950), s. 3. 
The respondent was arrested on the 21st of April, 195(), 
under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and on the 29th of 
19Sl 
Col. D. I. 
Mil() Phersott 
v. 
M. N. APflanM 
and ANJtlrer. 
Fazl Ali]. 
1951 
Jan. 25. 
1951 
Stat• qf B0111bay 
v. 
.Atma Ram 
Sridhar Vaidya. 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1951] 
April, 1950, he was mpplied with the ground for his detention 
which. was as 
iollo~·s ; "That you are engaged and are likely to 
he cng:iged in pron1oting: acts of sabotage on railway and r:tihvay 
property . in Greater Bombay." 
The respondent filed a habsas 
corpus petition contending that the ground supplied was vague 
as it did not 1ncntion the time, place or nature of the 
s~botage 
or how the respondent promoted it and that as the ground gave 
nc particulars, his detention was illegal. 
Pending the_ disposal 
of the petition, the Con1missioner of Police sent a comn1unica<:ion 
to the respondent giving these further particulars, viz., 
that 
the 
activities 1nentioned in the grounds supplied to him ·.vcre being 
tarried on by };im in Greater Bombay between January, 19S(J, 
and the d.tte of 
h~s detention and that he will in all probability 
continue to do so. The High Court of Bombay held th•t if the,;e 
particulars had been furnished at the time when 
the 
grounds 
were furnished on the 29th of· April, 1950, very likely they would 
have come to the 
conclusion 
that 
the grounds 
were such 
as 
would have led the <letenue to know exactly what he was charged 
with and to 1nake a proper representation, but released the res-
pondent holding th:n the only grounds which were furnished 
in 
the purported compliance of Art. 22 (5) were the grounJs furnisO.ed 
on the 29th of April, 1950, and as these 
grounds were not 
such as. to enable the dctcnue to make a proper 
representation, 
there was a violation of a fundamental right and a contravention 
of the statutory provisions and this violation 
cannot be 
set 
right by the detaining authority by amplifying or improving the 
grounds already given : 
Held 
by 
the Full Court (KANIA C.J., FAZL Au, PAT.\NJALI 
SASTRI, 
MuKHERJEA, 
DAs and 
CHA!"!'DRASEKHARA 
A1YYAR JJ).-
Under s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, it is the satis-
faction of the Central Government or the State Government., 
as 
the case may be, that is necessary, and if the grounds on 
wbich 
it is stated that the Central Government or the State Govern-
ment :ire satisfied have a rational connection with the: ohiccts 
which 
were to be prevented from being attained, 
the 
que~tion 
of satisf.action cannot be challenged in a court of law except on 
the ground of ma/a frdes. 
, 
Held also 
per 
KANIA 
CJ., 
FAzL 
ALI, 
MuKHERJEA and 
CttANDRASEKHARA 
AIYAR JJ., 
(PATANJALI . SASTRI 
and 
DAS JJ. 
dissenting).-Clause 
(5) of Art. 22 
confers 
two 
rights on the 
detenue, namely, first, ·3 right to be informed of the grounds on 
which

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