# DAKTAR MUOI v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 61
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-09-16
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/daktar-muoi-v-state-of-west-bengal-6196
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

j
A
DAKTAR MUOI
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
September 16, 1974
61
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY,
P. N. BHAGWATI,
P. K. GOSWAMI AND,
8
R. S. SARKARIA; JJ.]
c
D
E
F
Preve11tlve detention-Grounds of detention communicated to detenu-Right
·Of Court to examine record to see If a1<y other material influenced the suhjectil•e'
satisfaction of detaining authority.
· ·
·
The petitioner wa-s detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971. He was s~rvcd with the grounds for bis detention. In a petition cha!·
lenging the detention the District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit stating that
be boo passed the order of detention after being bona fide satisfied from the
materials on record, that ii was necessary to detain him and that the grounds
furnished to the detenu were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction
for making the order, though other materials were also placed before him.
This Court wanted to look into the record in order to be satisfied that the
other materials were not such as would have in any manner inftuenced the
Di>trict Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction.
On the contention of the respondent that this Court ought not to do so
when the District Magistrate bad stated that he had arrived at the satisfaction
only on the grounds mentioned in the detention order,
HELD : There is a possibility that the materials on record would disclose ..
activities of the detenu which were proximate and of a serious nature having ..
nexus with the object of the Act. If such elements exist then this Court would
be justified in taking the view that they must have influenced the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority. This Court has held that where there
are several grounds and if one ground is vague then it is difficult .to say whether
the ground which is vague and in respect of which the detenu could not make
an effective representation did not influence the mind of the detaining authority
in arriving at the subjective satisfaction, and that the detention order would
therefore be invalid If so, it would be equally invalid in a case where there
are other materials on which the detaining authority could have been influenced
in arriving at the subjective s!ltisfaction but which had not been mentioned in
the grounds of detention nor communicated to the detenu. Hence, whether the·
other materials on record bad any effect on the mind of the detaining authority
cannot be accepted solely on his statement. bei:ause, that would be acceptiiig
the mere ip9i dixit of the detaining a11ihority.
[62E·64B)
It may be that the record and bio data of the detenu may disclose material~
which have no nexus or proximity or are vague or, having regard to their
nature or magnitude are not such as would have been considered by the detaining
authority as essentiat In su~h a case the validity of the detention order would
not be affected. [64B-C)
G
Jn the present case, the other materials are remote in time and have no
H
nexus with the object of detention, and if they had been stated in the 11rou11ds
or communicated to the detenu, the detention would have been held invalid.
The District Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly, did not rely on those other
materials and was justified in his assertion that he did not do so. [64H-65B]
ORIGINAL JuRISi>ICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974.
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Ravinder Banga, for the petitioner.
Sukumar Basu & Co. for the respondent.
••
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.

## Text

j
A
DAKTAR MUOI
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
September 16, 1974
61
[P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY,
P. N. BHAGWATI,
P. K. GOSWAMI AND,
8
R. S. SARKARIA; JJ.]
c
D
E
F
Preve11tlve detention-Grounds of detention communicated to detenu-Right
·Of Court to examine record to see If a1<y other material influenced the suhjectil•e'
satisfaction of detaining authority.
· ·
·
The petitioner wa-s detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971. He was s~rvcd with the grounds for bis detention. In a petition cha!·
lenging the detention the District Magistrate filed his counter affidavit stating that
be boo passed the order of detention after being bona fide satisfied from the
materials on record, that ii was necessary to detain him and that the grounds
furnished to the detenu were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction
for making the order, though other materials were also placed before him.
This Court wanted to look into the record in order to be satisfied that the
other materials were not such as would have in any manner inftuenced the
Di>trict Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction.
On the contention of the respondent that this Court ought not to do so
when the District Magistrate bad stated that he had arrived at the satisfaction
only on the grounds mentioned in the detention order,
HELD : There is a possibility that the materials on record would disclose ..
activities of the detenu which were proximate and of a serious nature having ..
nexus with the object of the Act. If such elements exist then this Court would
be justified in taking the view that they must have influenced the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority. This Court has held that where there
are several grounds and if one ground is vague then it is difficult .to say whether
the ground which is vague and in respect of which the detenu could not make
an effective representation did not influence the mind of the detaining authority
in arriving at the subjective satisfaction, and that the detention order would
therefore be invalid If so, it would be equally invalid in a case where there
are other materials on which the detaining authority could have been influenced
in arriving at the subjective s!ltisfaction but which had not been mentioned in
the grounds of detention nor communicated to the detenu. Hence, whether the·
other materials on record bad any effect on the mind of the detaining authority
cannot be accepted solely on his statement. bei:ause, that would be acceptiiig
the mere ip9i dixit of the detaining a11ihority.
[62E·64B)
It may be that the record and bio data of the detenu may disclose material~
which have no nexus or proximity or are vague or, having regard to their
nature or magnitude are not such as would have been considered by the detaining
authority as essentiat In su~h a case the validity of the detention order would
not be affected. [64B-C)
G
Jn the present case, the other materials are remote in time and have no
H
nexus with the object of detention, and if they had been stated in the 11rou11ds
or communicated to the detenu, the detention would have been held invalid.
The District Magistrate, therefore, quite rightly, did not rely on those other
materials and was justified in his assertion that he did not do so. [64H-65B]
ORIGINAL JuRISi>ICTION : Writ Petition No. 116 of 1974.
(Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
Ravinder Banga, for the petitioner.
Sukumar Basu & Co. for the respondent.
••
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.
The petitioner challenges his detention
under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 19i l, as being illegal.
He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and sent to
Mictnapore
Central Jail.
On the same day he was served with the order of
detention along with the grounds of his detention, which, inter alia,
stated thus :
"2. On 26-4-1972 between 14.35 hrs. and 14.45 hrs.,
you along with your associates attacked the box wagon of
train No. D/N. 140-78 at through yard, Nimpura near east
cabin Home Signal and looted away rice bags from the said
wagon. Due to the act of yours the train suffered detention
for about half. an hour.
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
3. On 28-5-72 at about 18.35 hrs., you along with your
associates stopped goods train No. 501 Up at KM 119/15
near Ayma P. S. Kharagpur Town, Midnapore by disconnecting hose pipes and looted away huge quantities of brake
blocks and pull rods used for the maintenance, construction and operation of !ailways.
Due to this act of yours, the train suffered detention for
about half an hour.
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supp lies and services essential to the community."
The petitioner was asked to make a representation to the State
Government against his detention order if he so chose and also to
intimate if he wanted to be heard by the Advisory Board in person.
He was further informed that his case will be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of his detention under
the order.
On October 10, 1972, the State Government placed before the
Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order was made
as also the report madp by the District Magistrate under sub-s. (3) of
s. 3 of the said Act.
The representation of the ·petitioner was received by the State Government on October 11, 1972, and after due
consideration it was rejected by it on October 13, 1972. It was sent
to the Advisory Board on October 24, 1972. On October 30, 1972,
the Advisory Board, after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner,
submitted its report to the State Government stating that in its orinion
there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The
detention order was confirmed by the State Government on November
3, 1972.
It will be seen that the requirements of law regarding the time
schedule have been fully complied' with and there is no defect in the
detention
proceedings on that
score.
The
District
Magistrate's
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
. DAKTAR MUDI v. WEST BENGAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, /.)
63
affidavit stated that he had passed
the detention order after being
bona fide satisfied from the materials on record as stated in the
grounds of detention that with a view to preventing the detenu from
acti~g in any ~anner. pre-judicial. to the maintenance of supplies and
services essential to the community, it was necessary to detain him
under. the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal
Security Act,
1971. He further stated that the grounds furnished
to the
detenu
were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction for making
the said detention order though other materials were also placed be:
fore him.
In view of this statement that "other materials were also
placed before him". but his satisfaction was based merely
on
the
grounds stated in the detention order, we wanted to be satisfied that
those materials were not such as would have in any manner influenced
the District Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction.
1t was contended by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the State Government that this Court ought riot look into the record for satisfying
itself as to whether the District Magistrate could have arrived at the
conclusion when he savs he has arrived at that satisfaction only on
the grounds mentioned in the detention order.
We do not think that
this would be a correct approach. Where the liberty of a subject is
involved and he has been detained with.au! trial, under a law made
pursuant to Art. 22 which provides certain safeguards, it is the duty
of this Court as the custodian and sentinel on the ever vigilant guard
of the freedom of an individual to scrutinise with due care and anxietv
· that this precious right which he has under the Constitution is not in
anv wav taken awav capriciously,
arbitrarily or without any legal
justification.
This Court has held that where grounds are furnisheki to the detenu
those grounds must not be vague and must be such as to enable him
to make a proper and effective representation against his detention.
This Court has further held that where there
are several grounds,
even if one ground is vague, then it is difficult to say whether the
ground which is vague and. in respect of which the detenu could not
make an effective representation did not influence the mind of the
detaining authority in arriving at his subjective satisfaction . that the
detenu would in future be likelv to act in a manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Ii
the detention order is held invalid on this count, it would be equally
so in a case where there are other materials on which the tletaining
authority could have been influenced in arriving
at hi~ subjective
satisfaction but which he has not mentioned .in the grounds of detention, nor communicated them to the detenu.
In such circumstances
whether the other materials on record had any effect on .the mind of
the detaining authority cannot be accepted solely on his statement,
because to admit that he alone has such a right would be to accept
that the mere ivsi dixit of the detaining authority wOilld be sufficient
and cannot be looked into. There is a possibility that certain materials on record would disclose that the activities of the detenu are of a
serious nature havin11 a neXlls with the object of the Act, namely, the ·
'
. .
64
SUPREME C:OURT REPORTS
[1975] 2 s.c.R.
prevention of prejudicial acts affecting the maintenance
of supplies
and services essential to the community, and having proximity with
the time whe11 the subjective satisfaction forming
the basis of the
detention order· had been arrived at. If these elements exist, then the
Court would be justifietl in taking the view that these must have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the
omission to indicate those materials to the detenu would prejudice him
in making an effective representation. If so, the detention order on
that account would be illegal.
It may be that the record and bio-data of the detenu may disclose
materials which have no nexus, or proximity or are vague or having
regard to their nature or magnitude, are not such as would have been
consi<Jered by the detaining authority as essential for his subjective
satisfaction, in which case, it will have no effect upon the validity of
the detention· order. From this point of view, we have examined the
bio-data of the detenu but find that none of the materials .contained
in it have any proximity or nexus with the object of his detention,
nor having regard to the nature of the activities can we say that they
have or coutd have influenced the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
We find from the history-sheet furnished to the. District Magistrate by the Superintendent of Police, Midnapore that apart
from the facts which constitute the three wounds of detention specified in the detention order, there are two sets of facts disclosed therein.
One set is in resoect of police case No. 8 dated January 8, 1966,
under s. 379 J.'P.C. from which it will be found that the detenu was
concerned in four other cases,. three of 1970 and one of 1966, but he
could not be charge-sheeted in those cases as the eye witnesses were
afraid of deposing to facts publicly against the detenu and his equally
dangerous associates.
The second set is in respect of his being
bound down under ss. 110/118 Code of Criminal Procedure for six
months on January 9, 1971. Even thereafter he was again found
concerned in four cases in 1971 each one under s. :379 I.P.C.
The
Superintendent of Police states that in respect of the above four cases
thus:
"He has now become a veteran wagon breaker.
His
activities are highly prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
and services essential to the community. People of the area
are afraid of deposing facts publicly against him
and his
equally dangerous associates."
Thereafter the Superintendent of Police gives
some of the recent
instances. of his a~tivities prejudicial ,to the. maintenanc:e of supplies
~nd semces essential to the commumty, which alone have been given
m the three grounds mentioned in the detention order and which were
communicated to nim.
It is. appa~ent th~t !he il!stances to which we have referred to are
remote m therr proXIm1ty with the object of detention and would if
they had been stated in the grounds or communicated to the det~u '
A
B
c
D
E
F
H
A
B
DAKTAR MUDI v. WEST BENGAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, I.)
6S.
have been considered as remote in their proximity and on that ground
the detention would have been held invalid. The District Magistrate,
quite rightly, did not therefore . rely on those other materials, and we
think he was justified in his assertion in the affidavit that he did not
do so.
In the view we have taken, the detention is valid and accordingly
we dismiss the petition.
V.P.S.
Petition dismissed.
6-L251SupGl(75