# DWARIKA PRASAD SAHU v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 702 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1974-11-12 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 346 of 1974 - **Bench:** Y. V. OiANDRACHUD, P. N. Bhagwati - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dwarika-prasad-sahu-v-the-state-of-bihar-ors-6216 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Mai11te11ance of Internal Sernrity Act, 1971-S. 3(1)(iii)-Mixing of relemm B and irrelevant grounds in the order of detentio11-Efjecr of. The Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966 requireq that the names and addresses of the purchasers must be mentioned in the cash m~mos; but by a subsequent order issued by the State Government this requirement was dispensed with. On receipt of complaints that the petitioner was indulging in certain mal-practices, including charging a price higher than the controlled price, a surprise physical verification of the stock of h,igh speed diesel C oil was made and it was found that he had· stock of oil in excess of that shown in the stock register. The petitioner was detained under s. 3(2) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground, among others, that he sold 762 litres of the said oil wi!hout ·giving the names and addresses of the purchasers in· the cash receipts in contravention of cl. 7 of the licence and the supply under In a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution it was contended that the District Magistrate had totally failed to apply his mind and his subjective satisfaction based Inter alia on ground number 5 was therefore vitiated and it renD dered the order of detention invalid. the said cash memos was to fictitious persons. Allowing the petition, HELD: The conclusion is inescapable that since ground no. 5 was wholly misconceived, non-existent and not available under the law the order of detenlion must be held to be invalid. If there is one principle more firmly established than any other in this field of jurisprudence, it is that even if one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is nonexistent, misconceived ~ irrelevant the order of detention would be invalid and it would not .avail the detaining authority to contend that the other grounds or reasons are good and do not suffer from any such infirmity because it can ne:ver be predicated to what extent the bad grounds or reasons operated on the mind ()f the detaining authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if the bad grounds or reasons were excluded and the good grounds or reasons alone were hefore the detaining authority. [707F; C-D] Shlbba11 T.Al Saxena v. ;T/ie State of Ull'ar Pradesh, (1954] S.C.R. 418, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors., [1966] 1 S.C.R. 709, Pushkar Mukhariee & Ors. v. Tlze State of We.ndition that they should also buy from him other commodities, such as grease, brake oil, filter oil etc., but so far as outside truck owners are concerned, he supplied them as much quantity of high .speed diesel oil as they liked at prices higher than the controlled price. The third respondent, who is the Sub-Divisional Officer, thereupon sent respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the petrol pump of the petitioner with a view to checking the accounts and verifying the stock of high speed diesel oil with the petitioner. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 found on physical verification that there was a total stock of 1957 litres·in the two tanks of the petitioner as against a balance of 1597 litres· appearing in the books of account, with the result that there was an excess ~k of 13-L319 sup.Cl{75 704 SUl1P.EME COURl'. _RljPOllTS H975J 2 ~.C.R. 350 litres, The District Magistrate thereafter, on the materials placed before him, made the order of petention impugned in the present petiticn. the order of detention was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential. to the community it was necessary to detain the petitioner. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested and at the time of his arrest .he _was served with the grounds on which the ·order of detention was made. The grounds of detention s.erVcd on the petitioner· set out six grounds which were in the following terms : "1. That he being the proprietor of M/s Sahu Brothers Caltex petrol dealers at Gumla, his cash Memo No. 70996 dated 14-2-74 sh~ a sale of 120()-Jitres of High Speed Diesel oil to one Mr. -Griffiths of Tung Tola P. S: Raidih. The srud quantity is much beyond the capacity of any transport vehicle and thereby by the said ·alleged sale he not only aggravated the scarcity of an essential commodity i.e. high speed diesel oil bl;i~ he also supplied the said Mr: Grilfths the said oil in tins or barreals exceeding 37 litres (8 imperial gallons) otherwise than in the tank of a Motor vehicle, without obtaining a written permission from the District 'Magistrate or the Sul>-Divisional Magistrate, authorising t1:1e said Mr. Grifftlis ·to do so in . contravention of section 7 of Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Licensing Order 1966. 2. 1bat the said Mr. Griffths in his show cause submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Qumla and in his statement recorded by Executjve Magistrate, has denied to have purchased 1200 litres oif high speed diesel oil at a time at any time. 3. That thus it is qui,te apparent ·that by the said cash Memo No. 70996 no sale of the said oil was made and the said cash Memo was fabricated entirely with the object of disposing of 1200 Iitrc:s of the said oil in a clandestine way in black market. 4. That he being the proprietor of M/s Sahu Brothers Gumla supplied 300 litres of said oil fu Truck No. BR 662 on 26-2-74 and 300 litres to Truck No. MPL 5521 on 1-3-1974 and 400 litres 'in truck No. MPL 1008 ttn 1-3-1974 350 litres to truck.No. MPL 2135 on 1-3-74 and thereby he was not only aggravating the scarcity of essential commodity, i.e. the High Speed Diesel oil but also sup~ plied more than 37 litres (eight Imperial gallons) of Ute said oil in tin or barrel to be kept or stored othetwise than in the tank of a motor vehiele without obtaining a written .permission of the District Magistrate or the Sul>-Divisional A B c D E F G H D. P. SAHU v. BIHAR (Bhagwati, J.) 70ii A Magistrate authorising storage in contravention "Of s~ction 7 of the· Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers Licensing Order, 1966. 8 c D E F G H 5. That he supplied 7 62 litres of the said oil . as per Cash Memos fully described in ~hedule l annexed hereto without giving the . name and llfldresses of the pll!Chasers not only in contravention of clause 7 of the license but the supply by the said cash memos were shown to fictitious persons. · 6. That on physical verification of his stock by Shri . R. D. Singh A.D,S.O. and L. Sawaya, Sub-Deputy' Collector' on 7-3-197 4 his stock of the said .4lil was found to be in excess by 357 litres from the book balance which is undisputedly indicative of the fact that he has been showing ficti- · tious sales." · The usual procedure prescribed by thei provisions of the Act. was thereafter followed and the order of detention was approved by . the. State Government, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected, the case of the petitioner was placed · before. the Advisory Board and ultimately on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board; the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government. The main ground. on which the validity of the order of detention was challenged .on behalf of the petitioner was that ground 5 . was misconceived and betrayed total ·lack of application of mind on t)le part of the District Magistrate and that vitiated the order of deten" tion. The petitioner pointect out that though clause. (7) of the Licence issued to. him under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed .Diesel Oil Dealers' ;Licensing Qrder, 1966 provided that the names and· addresses of the purchasers must be mentioned in the cash memos, an order No. 12706/S.C., dated 11th July, 1966 was issued by the State Government which dispensed with this requirement until further orders and it was, _therefore, ~o longer necessary to set out the names and addresses of the purchasers in tfie cash memos issued to them and the ground that the petitioner supplied 762 litres of high speed diesel oil under various cash memos without giving the names and addresses of the purchasers in contravention of clause (7) of the Licence was, therefore, wholly unfounded. It was also urged on behalf of the petitioner that if .there was no requirement of setting out the names and addresses of the purchasers in the cash memos, no inference could rationally be drawn by the District Magistrate from the absence of the names· and addresses of the purchasers in the cash memos issued by the petitioner that the purchasers were fictitious persons. The petitioner urged that in the circumstances it was clear that this ground was based on a complete misapprehension of tbe correct situation and showed that the District Magistrate had_ totally failed to apply his mind and the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate based inter a1ia on this ground was, therefore, vitiated and it rendered the order of detention invalid. We think there is great 706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. force in this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner and the order of detention must on the basis of this contention alone be hi:ld to be bad. The gravamen of the charge a,gainst the petitioqer in ground No. 5 was that he supplied 7 62 litres of high speed diesel oil under several cash memos described in Schedule I to the grounds of detention without giving the names and addresses of the purchasers and this was not only in contravention of clause (7) of the licence, but it also indicated that the suf>plies under these cash memos were made to fictitious persons. Now, it is true that clause (7) of the licence issued to the petitioner provided that th<: licensee shall issue to every customer a con·ect receipt or invoice, as the case may be, giving inter alia the name and address of the customer and, therefore, if this requirement prescribed by clause (7) were operative at the material time, there can be no doubt that the action of the petitioner in issuing cash memos to the purchasers without giving their names and addresses would have been in contravention of clause (7) and it might have been a legitimate inference for the District Magistrate to draw that the sales were to fictitious persons, because otherwise their names and addresses would have been mentioned in the cash memos as required by clause (7). But the order bearing No. 12706/S.C~ dated 11th July, 1966 was issued by the State Government providing that "as regards high speed diesel oil,, the enforcement of the following condition of the licence shall be waived until further orders" and one of such conditions was : · "In the cash memo to be issued to the customers the names and addresses of the customers need net be mentioned and it will be sufficient if only the registration number of motor vehicles is noted in the cash memo". The requirement of clause (7) of the licence to mention the names and addresses of the customers in tlie cash memos was, therefore, dispensed with by the State Government with effect from 11th July, 1966 until further orders and this dispensation was in force at the time when sales were made by the petitioner under the cash memos described in Schedule f to the grounds of dete.ntion. The absence of mention of the names and addresses of th1r purchaser~ in these cash memos did not, therefore, constitute contravention of clause (7) of the licence and no inference could rationally be drawn by the District Magistrate, from mere absence of names and addresses of the customers in the cash memos without anything more, that the sales under the cash memos were t~ fictitious persons. Ground No. 5 was, therefore, wholly unfounded. It was based on a coJ11plete misapprehension of what was required to be set out in the cash memos. It is rather surprising that the District Magistrate should not have known that the requirement of clause (7) of .the licence in regard to mention of names-and addresses of the customers in the cash memos hacj been dispensed with by the State Government as far back as 11th July, 1966. If only the District Magistrate had properly applied his mind and made the necessary inquiries for the purpose of satisfying himself in regard to the charge in ground No. 5, he would have immediately realised that not mentioning the names and addresses of the customers in the .cash memos A B c D E F G H _, A B c D E F G H D. P. SAHU V. BlllAR (Bhagwati, /.) 707 was no longer a breach of clause ( 7) of ·the licence and it could not support an inference that the sales covered by the cash memos were to fictitious persons. ~ut it appears that the District Magistrate mechanicaly subscribed to the grounds of detention without even caring to examine whether groun~ ~o. 5 was correct or not and proceeded to make the order of detention. We have tried to see whether we could. even by taking a liberal or indutgent view, susta.iri grawid No. 5, but we find it impossible to do so. In fact the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State frankly conceded that it was not possible for him to support this ground. If there is one principle more firmly established than any other in this field of jurisprudence, it is that even if one of the grounds or reasons which led to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant, the order of detention would be invalid and it would not avail the detaining authority to contend that the other grounds or reasons are good end do not suffer from any· such infirmity, because it can never be predicated to what exten,t the. bad grounds or reasons operated on. the mind of the detaining authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if the bad ground or reason were excluded and the good grounds or reasons alone were. before the detaining authority. See the decisions of this Court in Shibban Lal Saxena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh,(1) Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2 ) and Pushkar Mukherjee & Ors. v. The State ofWest Benga/.(B) Even as recently as this year a Division Bench of this Court pointed out in Biram Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh(•) that "It is well settled that in an order under the present Act the decision of the authority is a subjective one and if one of the grounds is non-existent or irrelevant or is not available under the law, the entire detention order will fall since it is not possible to predicate as' to whether the detaining authority would have made an order for detention even in tlie absence of non-existent or irrelevant ground". The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that since ground No. 5 was wholly misconceived, non-existent and "not available under the law'', the order of detention must be held to be invalid. Though, on this view we are taking as regards the invalidity of ground No. 5, it is not necessary for us to say anything in regard to the other grounds, we think WC( ought to draw the attention of the detaining authority to one other infirmity, so that the detaining authority can, while exercising the power of detention in future, avoid such infirmity. That infinnity is to be found in ground No. 1 and it dis-- closes yet another instance of non-application of mind on the part of the District Magistrate. The allegation in ground No. 1 was that cash m~mo No. 70996, dated 14th February, 1974 showed a sale of 1200 litres of high speed diesel oil to one Mr. Griffiths, but this allegation was patently incorrect as the cash memo in fact, as frankly admitted · on behalf of the respondents, related only to the sale of 200 litres of high speed diesel oil to· Mr. Griffiths and for the sale of further 1()00 litres of high speed diesel oil to Mr. Griffiths. there was another cash (I) [19541 S. C. R. 418. (2) (1956] 1 S. C.R. 709. (3) (1969) 2 S.C.R 635 (4) A.l.R. 1974 S.C. 1161. 108 SOPRBMF. COT.JRT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. memo No. 71120, dated 16th February, 1974 which did not Jind . mention in ground No. 1. This circumstance .also is mdicative of the rather casual manner in which the District Magistrate proceeded . to make the order of detention without proper application of mind and it could have an invalidating consequence on the order of detention. We hope and 1rust that the District Magistrate will be more careful in the future when he has occasion to exercise the .enormous powers . of preventive detention entrusted to him by the Parliament. We . acccirdfugly quash 'and set aside the order of detention and direct that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. · P.B.R. Petitio11 allowed. A B