UJJAL MANDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 165 · Decided: 21-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
UJ.JAL.MANDAL 
v. 
STATE OF· WEST BENGAL 
.January 21, 1972 
165 
[J. M. SHl!LAT, H. R. ~NA AND K. K. MATHl!W, Jl".] 
Constitution of India, 1950; Art. 22(4) and West Bengal (Prevention 
of Violent Activities) Act (Presidenfs Act 19 of 1970), ss. 12 and 13-
Detention beyond three months on Advisory Board's Report-Whether 
Government should .confirm detention order within three months from date 
of detention. 
-
The petitioner was arreste.d on May 11, 1971, under s. 3 of the West 
liengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. His case was placed 
before the· Advisory lloard and the Board submitted its report to the State 
Government on July 12, 1971 that there was sufficient cause for the peti-
tioner's detention. · The .. State Government confirmed the order fif deten-
tion on August 17, 1971. 
L 
Jn a petition under Art. 32, 
. 
HELD : The deiention was illegal, since the' State Government confirm-
ed the detention order beyond three months from the date of detention. 
. 
' 
' 
. 
Article 22(4) has specified three mont!>-o. as the maximum period of 
initial detentio11 and dotetitiori ior a lo11ger period cao only be made on 
the basis of the re11ort bf the Advisory Board. Under ss. 12 and 13 of the 
I 
Act, the State Government has' power to detain a person beyond a period 
of 3 months but limited to u period of.one year, on the basis of tbe opinion 
of. the Board ~ 
tliare ii [IUlfigjent cause for detention. 
Wben the Stal.• 
Government receives the· opi.Qion, i~ pas_ -:tbe option either to con1Um or 
not the detention order: It would riot be necessary to confirm the deten-
tion if the Government wants to continue the detention only fdr the period 
of three months. Whep, s. l2(1) sppak of 'and continu.e. the detention of 
the person concerned. 'fbr such period as it thinks fit', it can only mean 
continuance of tbe defention from the point of time at which the detention 
F 
would become-illegal· if the order of detention is not confirmed, namely, 
the expiry of three.111ontbs from the·date of detention. lf·that be so,,the 
order of detenticin .. must be confirmed beiore the expiry of the three 
m<11tths. [168 G; 169 C:-OJ 
Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay, [1952] S.C.R. 
G 
612, 626 and Deb Sadhan Roy v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 218/71, 
followed. 
Aswini Kumar Banerjee v. State & Ors., C.W.N. LXXV, 1970-71, 866, 
Kaur Singh v. State, A.I.R. 1952 PBPSU 134. ,sangappa Mulappa 
v, 
State of Mysore, A.LR. 1959 Mys. 7 and Bhupati Goswami v. C. R. 
Krishnamurthl & Ors., A. I. It.. 1991 Aasam 14, apprO\-ed. 
H 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 420 ot 1971. 
Under article 32 ol the Constitution of India for a writ in ·the 
nature of habeas corpus. 
166 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1972] 3 S.C.R. 
Santokh Singh, for the petitioner. 
P. K. Chakrovorty and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of µie Court was delivered by 
Mathew, J. This is an application under Article 32 of the 
Constitution for the issue of a writ in. the nature of habeas corpus 
JI 
and for the release of the petitioner who is alleged to )le kept in 
illegal detention. 
On 11-5-1971, the petitioner was arrested under an order 
made on 29-4-1971, by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, in 
the exercise ol' his power under sub-sectiqn ( 1) read with subt-
C 
section (3) of section (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention. of 
Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act No. 19 of 1970), 
hereinfater called the Act. A copy of the grounds of detention 
was served on the petitiOi!ICr as required by section 8 of the Act 
on 11-5-1971. The District Magistrate reported to the State 
Government on 4-5-1971 about the passing of the o.rder of deten-
tion and the detention order was approved by the State Govern-
D 
ment on 10-5-1971. The case ol' the detenu was placed bjefore 
the Advisory Board (hereinalter called the Board) on 9-6-1971. 
Two rel?resentations were received by the State Government from 
the petitioner. They were rejected by orders dated 8-6-1971 
and 7-7-1971. The representations were also forwarded to the 
Board. 
The Board was of the· opinion that ·there was sufficient 
E 
cause for the detention ·and it submitted its report to the State 
Government on 12-7-1971. The State Government confirmed 
the order of detention on 17-8-1971 and that was communicated 
to the detenu on 21-8-1971. · 
· 
The only point taken on behalf of. the. petitioner in this writ 
petition is that since the detention
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.