# [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1101

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 1101
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-10-14
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 375 of 1971
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam, P. Jaganmohan Reddy, K. K. Mathew
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1972-1-s-c-r-1101-5333
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

110 l
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, s. 3(2)(a)-At least one
of the grounds of detention vague-Effect on detention order.
The petitioner was a dealer in salt in the State of Assam. On account
of unprecedented floods there was an acute scarcity of salt in the State.
Although there was no law in the State regulating its distribution and sale,
the Deouty Coffimissioner, in coflsultatio'l with the representatives of the
local Chamber of Commerce, fixed the ceiling price of salt. The District
Magistrate passed an order for detaining the oetitioner under s. 3(2)(a)
of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, 01 the grounds: that he
availed himself of the opportunity for profiteering in the commodity, (I)
by resorting to hoarding, and (2) by secretly seWng this essential cornmoditv at exorbitant rates, and was therefore acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity
of the detention order, the petitioner contended that the grounds were
vague and hence he had no opportunity to make a representation.
Allowing the petition,
HELD : ( 1) The first ground was vague as no effective representation
could have been made on its basis in the absence of particulars of the
profiteering or hoarding activity. [1103 G-H]
(2) Even assuming that this ground was not vague the second ground
was vague, because, the idea .of exorbitant rate is a relative one and the
ground did not convey any definite idea as to the price at which he was
selling salt, nor the time or p!ace of tbe sales or the persons to whom the
sales were effected. Since at least one of the itrounds was vague the order
of detention was vitiated. [1103 H; 1104 A-B, F-G]
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidva, [19511 S C.R. 167. 184
Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, [19681 2 S.C.R. 505. Pushka;
Mukheriee v. State of W. Bengal, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 635 and Motila/ Jain v.
State of Bihar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587, followed.
Kashav Talpade v. King Emperor, [1943] F.C.R. 88, applied.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 375 of 1971.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
A. K. Sen,
J. P. Bha•tacharjee,
D. N. Mukhttjt!I!, I>. K.
Hazarika and the petitioner in person, for the petitioner.
S. V. Gupte arid Naunit Lal, for the respoodmt.
...
1 1 0 ·2
SLl'REME COURT REPQJ( I>
(1972) l S.C.R
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
A
Mathew. J.
This application filed under
Article 32
of
the Constitution challenges the validity of an order for detaining
the petitioner, passed by the District Magistrate of Kamrup, under
Section 3 ( 2) ( u) of the. Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971 on August 30, 1971 and prays for the issue of a writ in the
B
nature of habeas corpus.
On the conclusion of the hearing of the case on October 7.
1971, we passed the following order :-
"We are satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate.
Kamrup, dated August 30, 1971, detaining the petitioner under
s. 3(2) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
cannot be sustained and as such the order of detention is set
aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
The grounds for the decision will be given in due course."
Now we proceed to state the facts and give the grounds of
our decision.
The petitioner was a dealer in salt and other commodities at
Gauhati in the State of Assam.
On account of unprecedented
flood the State was practically cut off from the rest of the country in the month of July and August, 1971 and there was acute
scarcity of salt in the State.
Although there was no law in the
State regulating the.distribution,-sale or price of salt, the Deputy
Commissioner of Kamrup in consultation with the representatives
of the Kamrup Chamber of Commerce fixed the ceiling price of
salt at Rs. 19/- per bag of 75 kg. by his order dated August 14.
1971. It was on the a!legati

## Text

A
B
,
c
D
E
F
G
H
MISHRILAL JAIN
.v.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAMRUP & ORS.
October 14, 1971
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM,
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND
K. K. MATHEW, JJ.]
110 l
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, s. 3(2)(a)-At least one
of the grounds of detention vague-Effect on detention order.
The petitioner was a dealer in salt in the State of Assam. On account
of unprecedented floods there was an acute scarcity of salt in the State.
Although there was no law in the State regulating its distribution and sale,
the Deouty Coffimissioner, in coflsultatio'l with the representatives of the
local Chamber of Commerce, fixed the ceiling price of salt. The District
Magistrate passed an order for detaining the oetitioner under s. 3(2)(a)
of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, 01 the grounds: that he
availed himself of the opportunity for profiteering in the commodity, (I)
by resorting to hoarding, and (2) by secretly seWng this essential cornmoditv at exorbitant rates, and was therefore acting in a manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity
of the detention order, the petitioner contended that the grounds were
vague and hence he had no opportunity to make a representation.
Allowing the petition,
HELD : ( 1) The first ground was vague as no effective representation
could have been made on its basis in the absence of particulars of the
profiteering or hoarding activity. [1103 G-H]
(2) Even assuming that this ground was not vague the second ground
was vague, because, the idea .of exorbitant rate is a relative one and the
ground did not convey any definite idea as to the price at which he was
selling salt, nor the time or p!ace of tbe sales or the persons to whom the
sales were effected. Since at least one of the itrounds was vague the order
of detention was vitiated. [1103 H; 1104 A-B, F-G]
State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidva, [19511 S C.R. 167. 184
Rameshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihar, [19681 2 S.C.R. 505. Pushka;
Mukheriee v. State of W. Bengal, [1969] 3 S.C.R. 635 and Motila/ Jain v.
State of Bihar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 587, followed.
Kashav Talpade v. King Emperor, [1943] F.C.R. 88, applied.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 375 of 1971.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
A. K. Sen,
J. P. Bha•tacharjee,
D. N. Mukhttjt!I!, I>. K.
Hazarika and the petitioner in person, for the petitioner.
S. V. Gupte arid Naunit Lal, for the respoodmt.
...
1 1 0 ·2
SLl'REME COURT REPQJ( I>
(1972) l S.C.R
The Judgment of the Court. was delivered by
A
Mathew. J.
This application filed under
Article 32
of
the Constitution challenges the validity of an order for detaining
the petitioner, passed by the District Magistrate of Kamrup, under
Section 3 ( 2) ( u) of the. Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971 on August 30, 1971 and prays for the issue of a writ in the
B
nature of habeas corpus.
On the conclusion of the hearing of the case on October 7.
1971, we passed the following order :-
"We are satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate.
Kamrup, dated August 30, 1971, detaining the petitioner under
s. 3(2) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
cannot be sustained and as such the order of detention is set
aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
The grounds for the decision will be given in due course."
Now we proceed to state the facts and give the grounds of
our decision.
The petitioner was a dealer in salt and other commodities at
Gauhati in the State of Assam.
On account of unprecedented
flood the State was practically cut off from the rest of the country in the month of July and August, 1971 and there was acute
scarcity of salt in the State.
Although there was no law in the
State regulating the.distribution,-sale or price of salt, the Deputy
Commissioner of Kamrup in consultation with the representatives
of the Kamrup Chamber of Commerce fixed the ceiling price of
salt at Rs. 19/- per bag of 75 kg. by his order dated August 14.
1971. It was on the a!legatio.!_1 that the petitioner was
acting
in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community that the District Magistrate
passed the order for detaining the petitioner.
The grounds of detention cominunicated to
the
petitioner
read as follows :-
" 1. That you are the proprietor of M/ s. Mishrilal
Nirmal Kumar of Fancy Bazar, P.S.-Gauhati, District-Kamrup which mainly deals in salt-an essential
commodity for human consumption.
Prices of essen-
. tial commodities including salt have •ecorded unprecendented rise in the middle of July, .1971
and salt
became so scarce that this essential commodity was
selling. in and around Gauhati at exceptionally high
prices immediately after the breaches of road and train
communications between Assam and the rest of the
c
D
E
~·
G
II
•
f
A
B
c
D
F
G
,
H
.
MlSl!RlLAL I'. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Mathew, J.)
1103
country.
You, being one of the leading dealers of salt
at Gauhati, availed yourself of the opportunity of profiteering in this commodity by resorting to hoarding,
The sudden disappearance of this most essential
commodity from Gauhati Market and resultant acute
scarcity and high prices resorted to by you and other
unscrupulous dealers became a subject matter of criticism both in the local press and the platform and the
situation ultimately posed a serious threat to the maintenance of law and order at Gauhati in August, 1971.
In order to ease the supply position of this commodity, the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup fixed
on
14-8-71 a ceiling on the prices of salt at Rs.
19.00
per bag and you wilfully organized profiteering by
secretly selling this essential commodity at exo·bitant rates at Gauhati by creating an artificial scarcity
yourself el/en after fixation of its price by Deputy Com·
missioner, Kammp on 14-8-71 and therebv acted in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community and your being at
large has, therefore, con3tituted a risk to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the Community.
Sci I - Illegible
District Magistrate,
Kamrup, Gauhati."
The petitioner filed a representation against the grounds.
In
it he contended among other things that the grounds were vague.
The representation was reiected and the Governor of
Assam
approved the order of detention under Section 3 ( 3)
of the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
. The argument put forward by counsel on, behalf of the petilioner was that the grounds were vague and. therefore. the oetitioner had no effective opportunity of making a representation.
The first ground only stated that the petitioner availed himself of the opportunity of the acute scarcitv of salt in Gauhati
for profiteering in tliis commodity by resorting to hoarding.
We
think that this ·ground was vague as no effective representation
could have been made on its basis in the absence of anv particulars of the profiteering or hoarding activity.
Even assuming that
this ground was not vague. we are satisfied that the other ground
suffers from this vice.
That ground was that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup fixed on 14-8-71 a ceiling on the prices of
salt at Rs. 19.00 per bag of 75 Kg. and the petitioner wilfully
!104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 1 S.C.R.
organised profiteering by secretly selling this essential commodity
at exorbitant rates at Gauhati by creating an artificial scarcity
even after the fixation of its price by the Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup.
The case that the petitioner has been selling salt at
exorb~tant rate does not convey any definite idea as to the price
at which he sold the article.
The idea of exorbitant rate is
relative one.
It has no absolu'.e connotation.
What may appear
exorbitant rate to one may not be exorbitant to another.
In
the counter affidavit on behalf of the Government of Assam it is
stated that the petitianer was selling salt at Rs. 35/. per bag of
7 5 Kg.
But that would not cure the defect of vagueness in the
ground.
Nor was there any mention in the ground of the time
or place of the sales or the persons to whom
the sales were
effected.
In the State of Bombay v.
Atma Ram Sridhar
Vaidya('), the Wilt! said:
"The contention that the grounds are vague requires
some clarification ............ If the ground which is
supplied is incapable of being understood or defined
with sufficient certainty it can be called vague.
It is
not possible to state affirmatively more on the question
of what is vague.
It must vary according to the circ· ·
cumstances of each case ........... If no reading the
ground furnished it is capable of being
intelligently
understCiod and is sufficiently definite to furnish ma'e·
rials to enable the detained person to make a representation against the order of detention it cannot be called
vague."
Tested by this standard we think the second ground at any rate
was definitely vague.
B
c
D
E
If the grounds are vague, it is settled by a series of rulings of
F
·this Court that the order of detention would be bad ( s~e RnmPshwar Lal Patwari v. State of Bihqr(') and Pushkar
Mukherjee
and other., v. The State of West Bengal(')].
Even if the second ground alone was vague, that would be
sufficient to vitiate the order of detention.
In Kashav Talpade v. The King Emperor(') it was observed:
" .. The detaining authority gave here two grounds
for detaining the petitioner.
We can neither
decide
whether these grounds are good or bad, nor can we
attempt to assess in what manner and to what extent
each of these grounds operated on the mind of the
. (I) (t9Sl) S.C.lt.. 161, 184.
(2) {1968) (2) S.C.R. SOS.
(~ (1969) (2) S.C.R. 63S.
(4) (1943] F.C.R. 88.
G
H
,
<
,,
'
B
("
D
E
(.
II
MISHRILAL v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Mathew, J.)
1105
appropriate authority and contributed to the creation of
the satisfaction on the basis of which the detention
order was made.
To say that the other ground, which
still remains, is quite sufficient to sustain the order,
would be to substitute an objective judicial test for the
subjective decision of the executive authority which is
against the legislative policy underlying the statute.
In such c3ses, we think, the position would be the same
as if one of these two grounds was irrelevant for the
purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and this
would vitiate the detention order as a whole."
The passage was quoted with approval by this Co4rt in
Rameshwar Lal v. State of Bihar(1). In Pushkar Mukherjee and
others v. The State of West Benga/(2), R:amaswami J. speaking
for the court said that if some of the grounds supplied to the
detenu are so vague that they would virtually deprive the detenu
of his statutory right of making the representation that would
make the order of detention invalid.
The same view was
expressed by Hegde J. in Motilal Jain v. State of Bihar and
others(8 ).
We think that the order of detention was illegal and
it
is
accordingly quashed.
V.P.S.
Petition allowed.
(I) (1968](2) S.C.R. 505.
(2) [1969] (2) S.C.R. 635. \3) [1968] \3) S.C.R. 58''
119SupC.l./72-2500-27-1!-1972-G!PF.