# Dwarka Do• Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [l956J. S.C.R

- **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 138
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ Petiti~ No. 328 of 1968
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A. N. Grover
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dwarka-do-bhatia-v-the-state-of-jammu-kashmir-l956j-s-c-r-4840
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-Preventive Detention Act 4
of 1950 s. 3(2)-Grounds of detention-Detention cannot be upheld if
anv of the grounds is irrelevant-'Maintenance of public
order'
when
affected.
The petitioners were detained under the Preventive Detention Act.
1950. They filed a petition for Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the
Constitution. The Court considered their cases individually in the light
of the grounds of detention supplied to them.
HELD : ( i) If some of the grounds whid,h are given are irrelevant the
order of detention cannot be upheld because the court cannot predicate
what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the
exclusion of those reasons. [139 HJ
Dwarka Do• Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [l956J. S.C.R
945 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal. [1969J 2 S.C.R
635, applied.
(ii) The grounds supplied to most of the petitioners were not relevant
to the 'maintenance of public order'.
The contravention of any
law
always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it
must affect the public or the community at large.
A mere disturbance
of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action
under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public order can alone
justify detention under that head. [141 B-C]
(iii) Citizens must not be detained under the Act for petty matters
and the grounds must be reasonably proximate in time. [141 DJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petiti~ No. 328 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. Garg, for the petitioners.
Debabratao Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterje,
for the respondents.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,860 of 40,530. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39860 for what follows._

IN RE: SUSHANTA GOSWAMI AND OTHERS
A
v.
December 17, 1968
{J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 22(5)-Preventive Detention Act 4
of 1950 s. 3(2)-Grounds of detention-Detention cannot be upheld if
anv of the grounds is irrelevant-'Maintenance of public
order'
when
affected.
The petitioners were detained under the Preventive Detention Act.
1950. They filed a petition for Habeas Corpus under Art. 32 of the
Constitution. The Court considered their cases individually in the light
of the grounds of detention supplied to them.
HELD : ( i) If some of the grounds whid,h are given are irrelevant the
order of detention cannot be upheld because the court cannot predicate
what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the
exclusion of those reasons. [139 HJ
Dwarka Do• Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir, [l956J. S.C.R
945 and Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal. [1969J 2 S.C.R
635, applied.
(ii) The grounds supplied to most of the petitioners were not relevant
to the 'maintenance of public order'.
The contravention of any
law
always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it
must affect the public or the community at large.
A mere disturbance
of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action
under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public order can alone
justify detention under that head. [141 B-C]
(iii) Citizens must not be detained under the Act for petty matters
and the grounds must be reasonably proximate in time. [141 DJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petiti~ No. 328 of 1968.
Petition under Art. 3 2 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
R. K. Garg, for the petitioners.
Debabratao Mukherjee, P. K. Chakravarti and G. S. Chatterje,
for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Grover, J. This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitu
tion by Sushanta Goswami and 46 others for a writ in the nature
of Habeas Corpus challenging the. detention of the petitioners
~it1der the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act 1950, heremafter called the "Act".
Petitioner No. 4 Krishna Monda! and Petitioner No. 21 Madhu
Kanjilal are stated to have been released.
No orders need he
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.D
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Gre>ver, J.)
139
made with regard to them. As regards petitioners Nos. 2, 8, 9,
15, 22, 24, 32, 41 and 4 7 their matters will be taken up for consideration later as the State has been directed to file further affidavits.
We now proceed to dispose of the cases of the other petitioners.
Petitioner No. 1 (Sushanta Goswami).-This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated
July 30, 1968. His detention was directed under s. 3 ( 2) of the
Act. on the ground that it was necessary with a view to preventing
him from aeting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. The grounds were supplied to him and he made
a representation to the Advisory Board which, after hearing the
petitioner and considering his representation, expressed its opinion
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. Consequently the
detention order dated July 30, 1968 was confirmed on September
20, 1968 by the Government of West B~ngal. The grounds for
detention have been perused by us. According to the first ground
the petitioner had been committing offences of forming unlawful
assembly, assaulting the police and peaceful inhabitants, snatching irway cash and valuables, teasing school girls and criminal intimidation. The instances which were given are seven out of which
it is necessary to mention only the following which are typical :
"(ii) That on 14-11-66 at 21.15 hrs., you with your
associates formed an unlawful assembly on Dum Dum
Road in front of the Fire Brigade Office and assaulted
Shri Pranab Bose of P-18 Matijheel Avenue and you
snatched away a fountain pen worth Rs. 10 from his
pocket.
(vi) That on 18-3-68 at 19.30 hrs., you with your
associates closely followed
Sm. Sipra Kundu ( 18)
from Satgachi crossing on Jessore Road and uttered
fndecent language towards her, as a result of which
she got terrified and ran away to save her modesty."
Ground No. II is to the effect that as a result of the petitioner's
nefarious activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
he has become a nuisance to the society and there have been disturbances and confusion in the lives of peaceful citizens of Dum
Dum police station and the ir.habitants thereof are in constant
dread of disturbance of public order.
We do not consider that the above grounds are relevant to
public order and i,f some of the grounds which are given are irrelevant the order of detention cannot be upheld because the court
cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the authority
would have been on the exclusion of those reasons; vide Dwarka
140
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Das Bhatia v. The State of Jammu & Kashmir('), and the recent
decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee v. State of West
Benga/( 2 ).
There the order of detention is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 3 Panchu ( Gopal Monda!) .-This petitioner
was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
dated March 23, 1968 made in exercise of the power conferred
by s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. He was supplied with the grounds and he made a representation. It was sent to the Advisory Board which, after hearing
him and considering all the material placed before it, expressed
its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The
Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order on
July 17, 1968.
We have perused the grounds of detention and we find that
most of them relate to matters for which penal or other action
could be taken under the relevant statutes. For instance ground
No. I (ii) is as follows :
"That on 12-1-68 at 11.30 hrs. you were found
operating your husking machine at puraton Bongaon
and on demand by S.I.S. Chatterjee of S.E.B. (7) you
could not produce the requisite license or permit.
That though you were prosecuted for operating your
husking machine on 12-1-68, you carried on further
operation with it as it was left on your bond of production, violating again the provisions of West Bengal Husking Machine (Control of Operation) Amendment Order
1967 ."
The fact that the petitioner could not produce the requisite licence
or permit can hardly be regarded as relevant for detention on the
ground of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies
essential to the community.
For the aforesaid reasons this petitioner is also entitled to be
released.
Petitioner No. 5 (Debendra Nath Das).-This petitioner was
detained by an order dated May 9, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate 24 Parganas under s. 3 (2) of the Act. His detention
was considered necessary for preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public· order His
representation was sent to the. Advisory Board which, after hearing him personally and considering all the materials, expressed. an
opinion that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention. His detention was confirmed by the Government of West
(I) [1956] S.C.R. 945.
(2) [1969] 2 S.C.R.635,
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
141
Bengal by an order dated July 17, 1968. The grounds of detention have been considered by us and we are of the opinion that
they relate mainly to the question of law and order and are not
relevant to public order. Moreover there
are
allegations of
offences under the Indian Penal Code for which prosecution could
be launched. As has been observed in Pushkar Mukherjee
&
Ors. v. State of West Bengal(') the contravention of any Jaw always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order
it must affect the community or the public at large. A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily
sufficient for action under the Act but a disturbance which will
affect public order can alone justify detention under that head.
Ground No. 1 (viii) which is typical may be specifically mentioned :
"That on 26-2-68 at about 09.00 hrs. you and your
associates stabbed Constable Bhupendra Nath Chakraborty of Gouripur T.O.P. under Oum Oum P.S. near
Birati Railway Level Crossing gate and stole away his
wrist watch."
We are satisfied that the petitioner could not have been detained
on the grounds which are before us. He is, therefore, entitled to
be released.
Petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb).-He was detained by an
order dated May 27, 1968 of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas
under s. 3 (2) on the ground that his detention was necessary for
preventinK him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He was supplied the grounds on which
he made a representation to the Advisory Board which heard him
personally and after considering all the material an opinion was
expressed that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The
Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order on
August 21, 1968.
We have perused the grounds for the petitioners' detention.
They relate mostly to the question of law and order and are not
relevant to public order. Consequently the petitioner is entitled
to be released.
Petitioner No. 6 (Anil Das). This petitioner was detained by
an order of the District Magistrate, Howrah dated May 18, 1968
made under s. 3 (2) of the Act, the detention being considered
necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The representation
made by the petitioner was forwarded to the Advisory Board
which considered all the material before it and was of the opinion
(I) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 635.
142
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 s.c.R.
;hat sufficient cause for his detention existed. On July 29, 1968
the Government confirmed the order of detention.
Most of the grounds are not at all relevant to maintenance of
public order.
Ground No. 1 (a) is that on August 12, 1966 at
about 10.00 hrs. "you being drunk demanded Rs. 2 from Shri
Santi Das ........ fl.lear the betel shop of Shalta Lal. ..... and
threatened him with murder when he refused to pay you the said
money"".
We are satisfied that the petitioner's detention cannot be upheld and it is hereby set aside.
Petitwner No. 10 (Dilip Kr. Chakraborty @ Konkan) ThiS
petitioner was detained by an order dated June 13, 1968 made by
the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act on
the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. One of the grounds, namely, 1 (ii) is .
"That on 13-3-67 you with your associate Debu
Biswas assaulted one Paresh Nath Koley of Ghosepara
with fists and blows".
Such a ground cannot possibly relate or be relevant to public
order. In view of our previous decisions mentioned before we are
of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released.
It
may be mentioned that this petitioner had also filed a petition
under Art. 226 in the Calcutta High Court but his counsel has
undertaken to withdraw that petition.
Petitioner No. 12 (Ashoka Kumar Mukherjee).
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24
Parganas, dated May 25, 1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act;
the reason for his detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds were
supplied to him and be made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board which, after giving a personal hearing,
expressed an opinion that his detention was justified. The Government confirmed the original order of detention on August 8,
1968. We have examined the grounds and they suffer from the
same infirmity as in the case of petitioner No. 7 (Abdul Waheb).
Ground No. 1 ( i) may be reproduced :
"That on 3-6-67, you assaulted one N abalchandra
Saha a hawker, with knife."
This petitioner is also entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 13 (Ram Kamal Dhar@ Leda)
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968
passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3(2) of
the Act on the ground that bis detention was necessary with a view
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, /.)
143
A
to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudi~ial t? the
maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention disclose
the same infirmities which are to be found in the case of petitioner
No. 7 (Abdul Waheb) and Petitioner No. 10 (Dilip C~a~raborty
@Konkan). For instance one of the grounds, No. 3 IS 10 these
terms :
B
c
D
F
G
H
"On 1-5-68 at about 12.35 hrs. you along with your
two associates being armed with
daggers,
snatched
away a wrist watch worth Rs. 130 from the person of the
Kulak Chandra Sarkar S/o Late Sahadeb Sarkar of
Madhab Nibas Colony, P. S. Titagarh, Dist. 24 Parganas
near Dum Dum South home signal at the point of dagger causing bleeding injury.
You were arrested with property red handed."
Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 14 ( Gopal Shuw). This petitioner was detained
b}! an order dated July 11, 1968 made by the District Magistrate
Howrah on the ground that his detention was necessary with a
view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. The grounds were supplied to him
on which he made a representation which was considered by the
Advisory Board by which he was also personally heard. On the
report of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for
his detention the original order was confirmed by the Government
of West Bengal on October 7, 1968. This case falls very much
in the same group as that of the petitioners Nos. 7, 10 and 12
above mentioned.
According to one of the grounds the petitioner had, on October 12, 1967 along with his associates committed a daring burglary in Howrah Tobacco Store by breaking open 6/7 padlocks and
removed Cigarette cases worth Rs. 10,000. He is thus entitled
to be released.
f!etitioner No. 16 (Makhan Lal Saha). This petitioner was
detamed by an order dated March 23, 1968 made by the District
Magist_rate 24, .Parganas, under s. 3~2) of ~e Act on the ground
that his .deti:ntmn was necessary with a view to preventing him
f~om acung m any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds were supplied to him on which he made
a represei;itation which was sent to the Advisory Board. After
heaf!ng him personally and considering all the materials, the
AdV15?ry Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his
detention.
Th~reupon the Government confirmed the original
order of detention on July 29, 1968. An examination of the
grou!lds shows that they relate mostly and are relevant to the head
"mamtenance of supplies and services essential to the community"
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
For instance ground No. 1 (i) is that on March 28, 1968 the petitioner together with his associate committed theft of over-head
traction wires including contact wire disrupting the train services
in Bongaon Section for more than 7 hours. The grounds may
have been relevant to the other head but none of them appears to
be relevant to "maintenance of public order". It is somewhat surprising and altogether incomprehensible how any District Magistrate or even the Government could have missed seeing that the
detention of this petitioner might have been justified under the
head "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community" but not the "maintenance of public order". Therefore
the detention order cannot be sustained and must be set aside.
Petitioner No. 17 (Sk. Yunus Ali). This petitioner was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, Howrah, on
March 7, 1968 under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground that his
detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. He
was supplied the grounds and he made a representation which
was considered by the Advisory Board. The Board heard him
personally and made a report that there was sufficient cause for
his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order
of detention on July 3, 1968. The grounds suffer from the same
iinfirmity as in the cases of petitioners Nos. 7 and 10. For instance
ground No. 1 (b) is:
·
"That on 12-3-67 at about 06.00 hrs., you and your
associates showed ugly gesture and
posture to some
women vendors of vegetables in platform no. 6 of Uluberia R!y.
Station and started whistling in mouth on
seeing those women.
RPF head Rakshak K.
C.
Chandra of Santragachi Crime Branch objected to such
indecent behaviour towards women by you al! 'when
Shri Chandra was physically assaulted with slaps by
you and was threatened with dire consequences by you
and your associates."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby
set aside.
A
B
c
D
E
F
Petitioner No. 18 (Gaddu Ghosh). This petitioner was detainG
ed by an order of the District Magistrate, Maida, dated June 3,
1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board. The
Board after hearing him personally and considering all the mateH
rials before it, expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause
for his detention. Thereupon the Government of West Bengal
·confirmed the order of his detention. Practically all the grounds
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
I45
A
do not appear to be relevant to public order. Gtound No. 2(a)
is typical and may be reproduced :
B
c
D
E
F
H
"That on the midnight of 21-7-67 you grazed your
17 heads of cattle on maize plants in the land of Amal
Roy of Kbasbari P. S. English Bazar. You threatened
Amal Roy with further mischief for impounding your
cattle."
His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 19 (Ratanlal Kairi). This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated
April 19, 1968; his detention being considered necessary in order
to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was referred to
the Advisory Board which considered it along with the other material and expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for
his detention. The Government made an order on July 10, 1968
confirming the order of detention.
The grounds
have been
perused by us and they appear to b.e relevant. The activities which
are mentioned therein show that they are of such a nature that
they relate to public order.
We would therefore decline the prayer for setting aside the
order of detention.
Petitioner No. 20 (Farid Ali Naskar). This petitioner was de·
tained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24, Parganas, dated
July 30, 1968 made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that
it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which considered it along with the other materials but made a report against him.
The Government thereupon confirmed the order of detention on
September 19, 1968. We have seen the grounds of detention and
they appear to relate mostly to removal of rice bags in a clandestine manner. These activities might have some relevance to the
head "maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community but by no stretch of reasoning can they be regarded as
relevant to public order.
The detention of the petitioner therefore is set aside.
Petitioner No. 23 (Sk. Makbul). The petitioner was detained
by the order dated March 8, 1968 made by the District Magistrate,
~owrah, under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that his detent10n was nec~ssa.11'. with a view to preventing him from acting in
a ~~nner pre1ud1cial to the maintenance of public order. On rece1vmg ~he grounds of his detention, he made a representation to
the Advisory Board which, after considering the same and giving
'
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1969] 3 S.C.R.
him a personal hearing, reported that there was sufficient cause
for his detention.
Thereupon the Government of West Ilengal
confirmed the ~detention order.
The grounds disclose the same
infirmity as in other cases e.g. Petitioner Nos. 7 and 10. Ground
No. 1 (a) is typical and may be reproduced :
"That on 10-2-67 at about 21.50 hrs. you and your
associaies threatened R.P.F. Head Rakshak Prakash
Chandra Mitra of CID Kharagpur at Andul Railway
Station with stabbing when Shri Mitra objected to your
passing 'of indecent remarks at a lady passenger."
Consequently the detention order is set aside.
Petitioner No. 25 (Uday Chand Namadas). This petitioner
was detained by an order of the District Magistrate J alpaiguri,
dated the 11th July 1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act on the
ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds he made a representation
which was considered by the Advisory Board. The Board gave
a personal hearing and after considering all the materials reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the
Govermnent of West Bengal confirmed the detention order.
Ground No. 1 is altogether vague and may be reproduced :-
"That you have been for a long ttme engaged in
anti-social, illegal and high-handed criminal activities
and in the course of such activities you have on different
occasions held out threats to different persons and that
you have associated yourself with anti-social elements.
Whenever the peace-loving citizens
questioned your
bona fide and protested against your activities and whenever they offered themselves as witnesses to your activities you threatened to burn down their houses."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be sustained because of the
existence of the above ground which is so vague that the petitioner could not possibly have made any representation with regard to it. In view of our previous decisions referred to his detention is set aside.
Petitioner No. 26. (Abdul Bari Karikar). This petitioner was
detained by the order made by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, on July 6, 1968 under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground that
the detention was necessary in order to prevent the petitioner trom
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. On receiving the grounds he made a represent\tion to the
Advisory Board which was considered by it. The Board, after
giving a personal hearing and considering all the materials expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
147
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention
on September 12, 1968. We have read the groU;nds and we consider that some of them are so irrelevant that it is incomprehensible
how any order of detention could have been made on those
grounds. For instance ground No. 1 is
"On 26-8-65 you were committed to trial before t!).e
court under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on a
charge of deceitfully misappropriating the cycle belonging to Bishu Khan of village Chonya Pathan Para."
Ground No. 4 is equally irrelevant. It has been stated that
"On 19-5-67 at about 7.30 a.m. you threatened
Karim Sheikh of village Chonya Pathan Para with
assault as he had instituted a case against you."
If such grounds can be considered to be relevant to public order
it would be open to the authorities to detain citizens without a
trial for such petty matters as have been mentioned in these
grounds. Moreover the first ground is also not reasonably proximate in time. It relates to some incident which happened in the
year 1965 whereas the detention order was made on July 6,
1968. The detention of the petitioner cannot possibly be upheld
and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 27 (Nagendra Nath Saha). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated April 19, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3(2) of the Act; the grounds of
detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds he made
a representation to the Advisory Board which reported that there
was sufficient cause for his detention. On July 10, 1968 the Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order. Two of
the grounds may be reproduced :-
"2 ( c) That your complicity transpired during investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 181 dt. 26-3-65 u/s
379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably suspended in the
case.
. ( d) That your complicity transpired during investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No. 180 dt. 26-3-65 u/s
379 I.P.C. and you were reasonably suspected in the
case."
Thes_e cannot possibly have any relevance to
"maintenance of
pubhc order'_', the pr?per impli_c~tions of which expression have
been fully. ~1sc~ssed m the dec1s10ns of this Court including the
recent dec1s10n m Pushkar Mookherjee & Ors.
v.
The State of
148
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
West Bengal(1).
The petitioner's detention cannot therefore be
upheld and it is hereby set aside :
Petitioner No. 28 (Habibullah Khan). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated February 17, 1968 made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s. 3(2) of the Act in order
to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds he made
a representation to the Advisory Board which expressed an opinion
in favour of his detention. The Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention on April 17, 1968.
We have perused the grounds of detention which do not relate
to public order; for instance one of the grounds I (iv) is to the
following effect :
"that on 27 12-67 at about 03.30 hrs. you and your
associates committed theft of signalling and telecommunication materials from location box No. L-60 worth
abont Rs. 3,000."
His detention is consequently set aside.
Peritinner No. 29. (Naba Kumar Glzosh). This petitioner was
-detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas.
dated July 13, 1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground
that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent
him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order.
His representation was considered by the Advisory
Board which made a representation that there was sufficient cause
for his detention.
On September 19. 1968 the detention orde:·
was confirmed by the Government. Some of the grounds are not
at all relevant to maintenance of public order; for instance ground
No. 1 (ii) is
'That on 1-3-68 at about 02.00 hrs., you and yonr
associate Ram Nehore Kouri were seen to conceal your
presence by the side of a wagon standing at Chitpur yard
with a view to commit theft from
standing wagons.
Being chased, you and your associates, were arrested by
the ( 1) on duty RPF staff and prosecuted."
The detention of the petitioner cannot be upheld and is set aside.
Petitioner No. 30 (Abdul Main Mirza). This petitioner was
detained by the order of the District Magistrate, Howrah, dated
March 7, 1968 on the ground that his d.~tention was necessary in
order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was considered
by the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient
cause for his detention. On June 12, 1968 the Government confirmed the detention order. Most of the grounds are not relevant
(\) [t959] 2 S.C.R. 615.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'
I
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
149
A
to the maintenance of public order. For instance ground No. 1 (a)
is :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"That on 24-2-67 at about 21.26 hrs. you and your
associates abused C.I.B. Head Rakshak 3646 Hara
Kumar Mukherjee of Shalimar and also threatened him
with dire consequences at Andul Rly. Station whein Shri
Mukherjee objected to the passing of indecent remarks
at a lady passenger of 358 Dn.
(Midnapur-Howrah
Passenger) train."
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby
set aside.
Petitioner No. 31 (Nripen Chakraborty). This petitioner was
detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas
on April 4, 1968 on the ground that his detention was necessary
in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to
public order. His representation was sent to the Advisory Board
which on considering the same with other material reported that
there was sufficient cause for the detention. The detention order
was consequently confirmed by the Government on June 12, 1968.
Most of the grounds do not appear to be relevant to maintenance
of public order. Ground No. (ii) may be reproduced:-
"That on 7-10-66·you pulled the alarm chain of the
train at Bongaon Ranaghat Section while you were
bringing rice for sale from Ranaghat to Bongaon, without having booked them and without having any ticket."
His detention cannot therefore be upheld and it is hereby set
aside.
Petitioner No. 33 (Nanda Kishore Rabi Das). This petitioner
was detained by an order dated April 25, 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24, Parganas under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the
ground that his detention was necessary for preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. He made a representation to the Advisory Board which
after considering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. The detention order was consequently confirmed by the Government of West Bengal on July 2,
1968. The grounds for detention in the case of tllis petitioner
appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order. He has
apparently been acting with a large number of associates and
committing acts which could have led to disturbance of public
order. His detention is therefore upheld.
Petitioner No. 34 (Samiron Sarkar). This petitioner was detained by an order dated August 2, 1968 made by the District
Magistrate 24, Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground
that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
.manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His reA
presentation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which reported
that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the
Government confirmed the order of detention
on
October 9,
1968. His case is similar to that of many others inasmuch as most
of the grounds are not relevant to the maintenance of public order.
By way of example ground No. 1 (ii) is reproduced :-
B
'That on 30-9-67 at about 21.00 hrs. you with your
associates Amal Karali, Bapu, Tripti and others forced
Shri Dula! Chandra Kundu, Abdul J abbar and Gobinda
Das Roy Choudhury of Barisha to go to the shop of
'
Nilan Maity inside Sakher Bazar and you forcibly took
I
away Rs. 65 from the pocket of Gobinda Das Roy
c
Choudhury, one wrist watch, a gold ring and cash Rs. 18
from Abdul Jabbar and Rs. 70 and 20 packets of cigarettes from Dula! Chandra Kundu."
His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside.
Petitioner No. 35 (Ashwini Kumar Karmakar).
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968 of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas made under s. 3 (2) of the Act, the
-detention being considered necessal'Y with a view to prevent the
petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
.of public order. His representation was sent to the Advisory
Board which, after considering all the materials, reported that
there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on September 19, 1968.
The activities which have been alleged in the grounds are again of
a type which cannot be relevant to public order. For instance
ground No. l(c) which is in these terms:
"That on 6-10-67 at about 06.30 hrs. you and your
associates were seen to remove sugar bags from
a
sealed wagon of a goods train artd to despatch the same
by hand pulling car while the train stopped at Bagmari
Rly. Bridge for red signal."
His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside.
D
E
F
Petitioner No. 36 (Sri Panchanan Das). The District MagisG
trate, 24 Parganas, made an order dated June 13, 1968 directing
nnder s. 3 (2) of the Act petitioner's detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His representation was sent to the Advisory
Board which, after considering all the materials, reported that
there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the GovH
ernment confirmed the detention order on August 29, 1968. Most
of the grounds are not at all relevant to the maintenance of public
order; see for instance ground No. 1 (c) which is
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
151
"That on 18-2-68 at about 11.30 a.m. you and your
associates were found to remove rice from a running
Railway wagon by breaking seal of the wagon door at
Bagmari R!y. pool and overhead Chitpur Bridge."
His detention cannot be upheld.
Petitioner No. 37 (lndrajit Debnath). This petitioner was
detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated
May 23, 1968 made under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground that
his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. His representation was considered by the Advisory Board
along with the other materials.
The Board reported that there
was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on August 1, 1968. Most
of the grounds contain allegations of theft of overhead traction
wire. They cannot possibly be relevant to maintenance of public
order. The detention order cannot be upheld and is hereby set
aside.
Petitioner No. 38. (Surjit Singh). This petitioner was detained
by the order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under s. 3 (2)
of the Act on April 4, 1968; the detention being considerd necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order. His representation was considered by
the Advisory Board along with the other materials and the Board
reported that there was· sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the detention order on June 29,
1968. Some of the grounds cannot possibly relate to maintenance
of public order. Ground No. l(viii) is in these terms :
"That on 16-2-68 you fled away from the R. G.
Kar Hospital while you were undergoing treatment under
police guard."
His detention consequently cannot be upheld and is hereby set
aside.
Petitioner No. 39 (Bada/Pal). This petitioner was
detain~d
by an order, dated July 30, 1968 made by the District Magistrate
24 Parganas under s. 3(2) of the Act, his detention being con- ·
sidered necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner pre-
.iudicial to the maintenance of public order. His representation was
considered by the Advisory Board with other materials which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention. Some of
the grounds have absolutely no relevance to the maintenance of
public order.
See for instance grounds Nos. l(d), (e) and (f).
His detention cannot, therefore, be upheld and is set aside.
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 S.C.R.
Petitioner No. 40 (Sona Karmakar). This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate dated July 30, 1968
made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground that his detention
was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His representation
was considered by the Advisory Board with the other materials
but the Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On September 18, 1968 the Government confirmed the
order of detention. Some ,of the grounds cannot possibly be re•
garded as relevant to maintenance of public order. See grounds
Nos. 1 (b) and (c).
His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 42 (Jaganath Goila). This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas made
under s. 3(2) of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to
detain him in order· to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
His representation
was considered by the Advisory Board together with the other
materials.
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause
for his detention. On October 7, 1968 the detention order was
confirmed.
A perusal of the grounds shows that most of the
grounds are not relevant to maintenance of public order and in
this connection reference may be made to ground Nos. 1 (ii) and
(iii).
The detention of this petitioner cannot, therefore, be upheld
and is hereby set aside.
Petitioner No. 43 (Shyamal Pal). This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas made under
s. 3 ( 2) of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain
him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order. On receiving the grounds of
detention the petitioner made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board together with the other materials.
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On May 17, 1968 the Government confirmed the order of
detention.
We have examined the grounds of detention. Most of them
do not relate to or are relevant to maintenance of public order.
The activities mentioned cover acts of theft, robbery etc. but they
cannot be considered relevant for the purpose of public order, in
view of our previous decisions. The detention is consequently set
aside.
Petitioner No. 44 (Suvranghshu Mitra). This petitioner was
detained by Bill order dated April 20, 1968 of the District MagisA
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUSHANTA GOSWAMI, IN RE (Grover, J.)
153
trate, 24 Parganas, made under s. 3 (2) of the Act on the ground
that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him
from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance. of
public order. His representation was forwarded to the Advtsory
Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for
his detention.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on June 28, 1968. Some of the
grounds are· wholly irrelevant to maintenance of public· order. For
instance ground No. 1 (i) is
"That on 11-10-67 at about 11.45 hrs. you assaulted
Shri Narayanchandra Das .. of 6A, Baikuntha Ghose
Road, Calcutta-42 with fists and blows."
He is therefore entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 45. (Madan Mohan Manda!). This petitioner
was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas,
dated January 16, 1968 on the ground that it was necessary to
detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. His representation
was considered by the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that
there was sufficient cause for his detention. Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on May
1, 1968. Some of the grounds of detention do noi appear to be
relevant to maintenance of public order. See for instance grounc!
No. l(iv).
Consequently he is entitled to be released.
Petitioner No. 46. ( Ranga/al Debnath). This petitioner was
detained by an order dated March 16, 1968 passed by the District
Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under s.