# pRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC v. THE DISTRICT MAGISRATE, K.AMRUP & ORS - **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 12 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1974 - **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, M. H. Beg, A. K. Mukherjea - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prabhu-dayal-deorah-etc-etc-v-the-district-magisrate-k-amrup-ors-6122 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote . 1 InterMI Security Act, !971, s. 3(2}(e)-One of _the groulldJ Mamt~11anct 0 V /'dity of dctemion-Dclay by Governmcllt m r~ccting o/ dettntwn l'D8Ue- a 1 tlttrnu'J rtpresrntation-Effect. Th titioner were detained by orders under'· 3(2) (a)_ of the Ma.in~nance of Int;r~~ Security Act, 1971. The fm;_t grou?~ of dctcnuon sta~d tb~t the petitioners "ere responsible for una.uth~nseo.i m1lhng o( paddy and sn~uggilng the resultant rice to Megbalaya for sclhng 11 at l!~due pr~?llt. The pcuuon~r, liellf representations to the State Goyernment rrusmg vanous groun~ aga111>t tb~ validity or the order.~ of detenuon. The State Government rcJec.tcd the rep~· sentations. But even before that, and wben the matter was pcndmg before the Advisory Board. the petitioners filed petitions und.:r Art. 32 for the issue or a writ of habf'OS. corpus. It was contended !but, (i) the 11rounds aiven in the detention orders were vagUe and indefinite that therefore the constitutional right or making a rrpro:sentation against the detention order was defeated and hence the dct( deteoti 0 arc \"it:.~ and th~ petitioners lire ~nt"~~ vlngbue nn1d hence th<> detentioru ord~rt ( The . 1 c o e rc ~ased from custody. [ISG-HJ. 3 J requtremcot of Art. 22 ( s) of th C . . . . • u~<'>S lhe detcnu ;, Given the earli<:st 0 e . onstllutton wdf not 00 satc;~~d ag;u~t h1> dctcnuon, and no 0 rt _pportumty to make a r~prcscntauoo elfccuve unles. the det.enu is fu~ umty_ to make the reprcsentauvn can ~ £rour>wlc~ tn the J~round~ of ~~~~ed. rrulhng .of paddy h~d been ~~:'}\g:nl!~'!ed tlte sei~r~~:tu,_t~ rice wa., s~~~~~fe~or ts thae IUIYtbing tll ,,f paddy oPris.cd PO'i1o(}atldy und rice haeg a ~~a. The fact tb~t rnolltng ur padt! ;nee that the pcliti ton of the !>Clition~ been uncarthcJ anJ Me¥h;•1Aya for ~~,~~~·:h les1 th:at th~;crs h~tl been ind"u? ,.woul~ uot n~.:(o;s,lrily (d) \ ~ Undue profit r wer~ Slnu~lllin Jo;tng tn unauthorised '"&ue th~ ~~ne ~~ lbe ground\ · 1 MP-G;-20E-Fj g the rcsulc;tnl rke to that if tbe fi~~tloQ ordtr"l mu,t ~nununi<:atcd to .. th~ order of dct:~ti~~J wli ~.\clul!Jr~houncc~ .b:t~~e ft''llllvner.. i~ founJ ,to be · OC, E) c detltlnm11 auth c~uld not be: predicated Onty wouiJ h,l\·e pa~sed A B ( 0 l. F li l ., f I r I ( I P. D. DEOR•'"H V. DIST. l'l'lAGISTRATE 13 A Ke~hi1v Talpade v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 FC p. 1 (p. 8),' Dr. &m Krisharr Bhardwaj '!· The Stare of Delhi & Ors.; [1953) S.C.R. p. 708, Motilal J ## Text _Characters 0–39,795 of 87,032. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39795 for what follows._ 12 pRABHU DAYAL DEORAH ETC. ETC. v. THE DISTRICT MAGISRATE, K.AMRUP & ORS. . October ll. 1973. [K. K. MATHEW, M. H. BEG AND A. K. MUKHERJEA, JJ.] . 1 InterMI Security Act, !971, s. 3(2}(e)-One of _the groulldJ Mamt~11anct 0 V /'dity of dctemion-Dclay by Governmcllt m r~ccting o/ dettntwn l'D8Ue- a 1 tlttrnu'J rtpresrntation-Effect. Th titioner were detained by orders under'· 3(2) (a)_ of the Ma.in~nance of Int;r~~ Security Act, 1971. The fm;_t grou?~ of dctcnuon sta~d tb~t the petitioners "ere responsible for una.uth~nseo.i m1lhng o( paddy and sn~uggilng the resultant rice to Megbalaya for sclhng 11 at l!~due pr~?llt. The pcuuon~r, liellf representations to the State Goyernment rrusmg vanous groun~ aga111>t tb~ validity or the order.~ of detenuon. The State Government rcJec.tcd the rep~· sentations. But even before that, and wben the matter was pcndmg before the Advisory Board. the petitioners filed petitions und.:r Art. 32 for the issue or a writ of habf'OS. corpus. It was contended !but, (i) the 11rounds aiven in the detention orders were vagUe and indefinite that therefore the constitutional right or making a rrpro:sentation against the detention order was defeated and hence the dct( deteoti 0 arc \"it:.~ and th~ petitioners lire ~nt"~~ vlngbue nn1d hence th<> detentioru ord~rt ( The . 1 c o e rc ~ased from custody. [ISG-HJ. 3 J requtremcot of Art. 22 ( s) of th C . . . . • u~<'>S lhe detcnu ;, Given the earli<:st 0 e . onstllutton wdf not 00 satc;~~d ag;u~t h1> dctcnuon, and no 0 rt _pportumty to make a r~prcscntauoo elfccuve unles. the det.enu is fu~ umty_ to make the reprcsentauvn can ~ £rour>wlc~ tn the J~round~ of ~~~~ed. rrulhng .of paddy h~d been ~~:'}\g:nl!~'!ed tlte sei~r~~:tu,_t~ rice wa., s~~~~~fe~or ts thae IUIYtbing tll ,,f paddy oPris.cd PO'i1o(}atldy und rice haeg a ~~a. The fact tb~t rnolltng ur padt! ;nee that the pcliti ton of the !>Clition~ been uncarthcJ anJ Me¥h;•1Aya for ~~,~~~·:h les1 th:at th~;crs h~tl been ind"u? ,.woul~ uot n~.:(o;s,lrily (d) \ ~ Undue profit r wer~ Slnu~lllin Jo;tng tn unauthorised '"&ue th~ ~~ne ~~ lbe ground\ · 1 MP-G;-20E-Fj g the rcsulc;tnl rke to that if tbe fi~~tloQ ordtr"l mu,t ~nununi<:atcd to .. th~ order of dct:~ti~~J wli ~.\clul!Jr~houncc~ .b:t~~e ft''llllvner.. i~ founJ ,to be · OC, E) c detltlnm11 auth c~uld not be: predicated Onty wouiJ h,l\·e pa~sed A B ( 0 l. F li l ., f I r I ( I P. D. DEOR•'"H V. DIST. l'l'lAGISTRATE 13 A Ke~hi1v Talpade v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1943 FC p. 1 (p. 8),' Dr. &m Krisharr Bhardwaj '!· The Stare of Delhi & Ors.; [1953) S.C.R. p. 708, Motilal Jain 'Y. State of 111/wr & Ors. [1968] 3 S.C.R. p. 587, Mishrila/ lain v. The Di3trlct Magistrtlle, Kamrup & Vrs. [ l 971) 3 S.C.R. p. 693 State of Bombay v Alma c () F G ll Ram Sridhar Vaidya [1951] S.C.R. 167. ' · (e) This. i~ not a case where o11:e. of the &r?Un~ of detention was merely vague. It IS a case where the detamtng authonty dtd not apply its mind at all to one ?f the grounds of dctent~on.. If the detaining authority had no particulars b_eforc tl as regards t_he smuggling tt C?~ld not have b~eo possible for the autho· nty to h:•ve b~cn S'!-tl~ficd. that the pctllloners were smuggling rice to Meghalaya. If there 1s any particular mstance of smuggling of the kind in the mind of the detaining authority it would have been p0'5siblc to specify the particular instance. [200-21Bl (f) The fact that the Adv~ory Board would consider the representations of the petitioners wh~rein they have also raised the contention that the grounds arc vnguc would not in any way prevent this Court from e;t;erci.sing irs- jurisdic· tion under Art. 32. The ddenu bas a right under Art. 22(5) to be afforded the c;,rlic~t opportunity for m:~.k.ing a representation agairL~t tbe order of deten· tion. Thnt constitutional right includes within its compass the right to be furni:.hcJ with adequate particulars of the grounds of the detention order. If this constitutional right of theirs i3 viola1cd they have every right to come to this Court under Art. 3:! complaining that their detention is had. [21B·D]. . (g) Thi.~ is not a case of wher~ any public interest was involved justifying the detaining authority under Art. 22(6), in not disd0'5ing all the particulars. [22B·CJ Luk·rcncl! Joachim Joseph D'Sau-z,a \·. Statt? of Bombay [1956} S.C.R. 382 di~tingui sbcd. (h) If a ground communicated to the detenu is vague, the fact that the peti· tioncrs could ha\'e a.sk.ed for further particulars, but they diJ not do so, is im· material and would not be enough to salvage the orders of detention. That fact would only be relevant for consiJering the qu~stion whether the ground is vpguc or not. [22E-F) (i) The .gravity of th.: evil to the community resulting from anti~ocial activities can never furnish. an adequate reason for invading the personal liberty of <1 citizen, except in ncc:orJance ·with the procedure established bv th~ Contion v.hetht:r the .Ji,p.-xal of the: renresentatiom bv the Government wu.. inonlin;..tely delayed; nor i:l it n~~--..--ssary to. consider whether the detaining :,ttthllrity arrlkJ its mind to the oth.:r grounds tn the detention order. [22P·OI Pa lkg, J. Th.: pctiti••n.:N haw not proved that the detaining _authority C\Cecdcd it~ rower in ddai!lins the petitioner on the grounds alleged aga~nst them, nor hal'c they provcJ that tht'ir deh:ntions had become sub~~uently illegal due to denial ut thdr con,titu!iunal right.s to make effective representations. [370] (I) (a) ·r hi~ C.ourt C of each case must be t:~k.:_n into a~count in dct<•rmining \1 h~th!r th..: opportunitY of e-ffective representa!•on h~< \1.:cn d~:nicJ. The ullcgo:J \'aguene~~ or want of rnrticulars, mn~t be \'lewc_J Ill the conteJtl of the nature of activities alleged, the sub~tnnc.: of tho nlk!r.!ltons. thll conh: nl~ o! the represcnlationi mad.:, und thu effect they hav<- actually pro· .Juc:ed. The fact thnt the case iJ of 10 we~:h from the detention, b.:fore an Adv1sory llourJ, wh1d1 ~- ~··;· ·-- ;. ,.._::.: - ----=-- . ·.:... ... . -- -~. :-- - \ \ .. ---- - ---- -.- ·--:-. j sUPREME coURT REPORTS [ 1974 ) 2 S.C.R. 14 . · . · te some grounds as vague or wanting and jurisdiction to ch'ffi~~ocy or otherwise of the rest of the has ful~ po 1 wc~od to dttermin.c the su \ be tgnorcd. [29C.,36F-Hl 10 partJCU ars . 1 . suppltcd, canno f ' srounds and parttcll ars . 1 of recoveries made rom the; premis~ (b). In the present c:JSe,. par•~u ~~ccoveries ot. rice and sugar sa~d to ~av~ 1 were given; paru~u ar> 0 and the um.:s and p!aces. "lliere gtvcn; 1:! thch:~~~d in an unauthortsbd =l~~ as well as the qual.tltes of the rice reth:"quantities rccov~red on {ac the sentences at the begtnmns and th0 end o1 ·overed were given. Tit~rc ore, rounds in each cas<:, ap~areni;IY consutute tht ~he detention orders. stattDS th~ J from the particulars gwen m th~ body. 1\ ~ondusion . or mfercnces rca~ c ndcrsUtnd its meaning, should. )'e reau a3 " uocumcnt, tn order to corrc':'t Y n~tions submitted by tho peUttoner<> to th~ whole. A perusOII !>f '::J ex~~erting that they wer~ unable to und~rstand, o•· Government, wb~rem, !•r ounds of detenuon, because of vagueness make r.ep~eSGutnttonsd nfunst f~t~ ~e nlleg:Uions of fact mnkes it difficult to sc~ the petmoner procce e to re d" d by the alleged vaguene55. how the petitioners were really preJU ICC . [2&0-14; 29D-EJ . Ass ming however that there W:JS some infirmity or vaguen~ in some ar~c~f tb: detc~tion ord~ containing the. grounds it could not be said that it ~as of such n lcind as to vitiotc the detent tOn order. [2?-F 1 . _ (i) 11le question whether a dctenu was _or was not.gtveo duo opport~mty ot mnJ;.iog an effective representation in. a P.arucular case tS larg.:ly a qlle:jtton. of foct which must be decided after taking tnlo account the totallly of facts. (~ IHJ (ii) It is true that the detcnu h>ts u. right und~r Art. 22 ( S I o~ tho ~~i~ tion to ~ afforded the earlio:.c, that upportunity h.~d been affonlcJ to the det.t:nus nnd thev have. made repres<:otations wbich includcu the grievance that ~omc of the groun"'bly a1 .to proctic;,Uy d~molish the u.nchallenged power, unde.r a com?tut•onally voltd sh!tutory pronswn, to COil_\luer and dectde the objecuons cont:uoed 10 a reprc~enta!ton. There may be ca.~es \lohcre the grounds of detention !DAY. prima /ofil', show that the detention is invalid or ordered for some collateral P.UTl!OOC tn u~ess of the ~wer to detain;. or the foct5 indicating the denial of the ngbt of mll"nJ: an effecu,·e repre,~nta!ton may be so p11tent i\nd clear that it woul.d be an unoccessary proloogalton of an illegnl detention to wait for the ~~v·~?ry lloar'!i: w~ich is f:i,·en unll~r s. ll. 10 we usill!: rnabl~ the ~l.'tcnu :o g mak 5 3:r~ too . vogue o~ mJe~tntlc to he unJcr'itOba11 Ltd 1Safuplt D Sou:a v. Tit~ State of an~ Num/1 Chartd' .u wr/t~ & Ors v S' lt!lla v. State of U.P~ {19541 ~II, rdmed to ra <; 011RIIIi v. 1'he siut~ -:rw We~ BrllR::- pr!!»Um~ that they were not there befo~e the det~n tion W;l~ ordered. The u • .n·rrnment could no_t _be presumed to be ~~ posseSSIOn of all the fact~ taken int~.> a-....::ount by the ~d;umng officer. The det:umng officer h:W not comultcJ the Government before ordering detention. Therefore, th~ time wken by the Government in m:tldng the inqu~ries onlv shoW<; that ~overn; ment took care to verify the correctneu of alle~tahon~ made by the petmoner.. • or, in other words, that it, on the coouary, applied its mind to the facts of tho: case!. [36A-C) ( 4) In a case of rreventive det~ntion wber~ fairly tria~le questiom of .fa.:t or law, which cno be more appropoatelY gon.e. mto an•l d•!Cid~d ~v an Advt~Of't' Ronnl, ure rending lxfore the Board, the petition should be dism1s~ed a. prem:tture excert in very exceptional circuxrutance8. The Court, no doubt, m~st ~:~1ou~ly protect the personal free-of .c!tiuns ag:~inst :~rbitrary ?r unco?"~~~~~ltional invasions of it bY uecutiv.: uuthorltte,. But, to do that, 1t 1s not n.-tssnry ll> ... "\" ' - -~--·--·--·- -:-- ·- . '! ... ·.:.....:.:- .. . . ·-· T REPORTS SUPREME COUR ( 1974} 2 S.C.R. I 6 . e method of consideration of the pccts the more c~~c~nsiuer the sutlictency ot grounds ltifY "hat is, in som.e r:: Boa;d which cou 'bed procedure for protectJon of ~~~ole ca.~ bY an AdvtsoaiioW the legally pr~~~ with the social !n~r~t:l p_reven- . or det~nuon also. Te~ate freely and constSIC to be the path of JUthcial wisdom. rsonalltbert~ to op safeguard, appears ue but othen could ruscnably ~·c detention ts mean~o~nrls of dctenuon arcn~a~uch greater a~prchende~l hano £,·en if some o~ the ~uthoritY that, to. pr_evc individual, hts prev~ntJve de.. s;uisfy the dctatrung h anti-social acttvtt•es of ·~'lr,g grounds of det;enuon should tn $0dal ~.nod fro.m 1 the suffidcncy of the rcmat.th the duty to consHler the que3tcntion is •mpeb~t~vc~~rmincd by those chargc~ei':rmine what really .and su~tan bl! allowed to u- should not undertake to unds of detention. It tS onl_y wh.ere ''.On. .The Co rtuestion of suffic•e.ncy of groh,ch either makes the &allsfactton u:illy IS onl_y a 1ndeflnit~ness is diSclo~~ w .. ~ 1 disables a dctenu from mal:tnp; a Val'llcne:.s or d nrea.sonnble or whtc . rc. Y ld b• vitiated on such a ground. quite ill~•ory no ut tion that the dctenuon wou - [37-\ l-1: 38A-B] an elfecii\'C represen n . • - • - .. Writ Petitions Nos. 1496 and 1497 vf ORIGL\;Al JURISDICTION • 1973. . th Constitution for issue of a Writ in the Untlct Arllcle 32 of c · nature of habeas corpus. 1 1 ·e D N Mukherjee Dilip K. s .. ,V. GdupNte, RJ. clj,:ud~:~ uzrtdr ethe Petitioner (in \V.P. 1946/ Hazan,.; a an · · ··"' 73). · · K H 'k nd N R J.P. Bhnttacharjee, D. N. ~fukherjee, Dzilp . azan a a · · ClwudluiT)', for the petitioner 111 (\V.P. No. L497 /_73) • Nirm De, A ttcrney.Gcncral of India and Naurnt La{ for the res· pondcnts (in both the petitions). The Judgment of MATHEW and MUKHERJEA. JJ. was delivered by MATIIEW, J. A dissenting openion was delivered by Beg, J. . MAmEw, J. The petitioners question the legality of the orders of detention dated 25-7-1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup, under s.3(2l(a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. 1971, hereinafter referred to as the "Act", and pray for issue of writs in the n4ture of habea1 corpus. Th~ order~ of detention state that the detaining authority is satisfi~d tha! w;t!l a VJew to prevent the petitioners from acting in a manner prcJUdJcJ~l I? the rnamtenance of supplies and services essential to the com~unt~y tn Ka~rul? ~is~ct, it . is necessary that they should b.; dctarned tn Gauhali Jail Wttb unmcdmtc effect until further ordas. <;>:t 30·7-1.97?, the pctilionm surrendered themselves bdore tile ~dd•lional Dtstnct Magistrate. On th~: sarue day each of the pctiJo~cr~ was served wi_th the order of detention and :Uso the grounds of a e~~~~~n~~fi~~c~g~~t ~h letterd .informing ~im of his right to make ment e or cr of dctcnt1on to the State Gov-:rn· The grounds of detention , d 1 IJ.:orah read 35 follows : serve upon the petitioner Pn1bhu Daya "That you, being one of th . . ~r. ~fls. Dcora Flour and Ric PM~ncrs and m the active management Snn.vas. ~asudeo, Fane nadrc Ills, ~00 Road, Gauhati and Mfs. Tlsed lllllhng of paddy ~n M; ' ~uhah arc responsible for unauthoRoa~. Gaubati and smugglin ~~ ora flour and Rice Mills at Zoo c:!mmg undue profit y g f the resultant rice to M..:ghalaya for · ou arc also responsible for unauthorised A l D E F G I ~ t ,. I i II I ./' A B 0 E F G p , D. DEORAH v. D:tST. MAGISTRATE (MMhew, /.) 1 7 hoarding of rice and sugar in the premises of M/s. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and M/s. Srinivas B~udeo at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these commodities at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profiteering. . "On 25-7-1973 the following quantities of paddy and rice were unearthed and seized from your unauthorised possesston at 1.J:Jo Road (Deora Flour and Rice Mills) premises. 1. S:tli paddy .. 147 bags 2. Ahu paddy .. 207 bags 3. Stli Mota riec (Arua) •. 239 bags 4. Ahu rice .. 8 baas S. Joha rice .. 14 b~gs "That on 4-1-1972, 191 bags of sugar were seized by the Supply Officials Qf Gauhati from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. "That on 16-5-1972 the supply officials seized 105.03 quintala of rice from your unauthorised· possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. "That you indulged in ~uch trade activities which created acute · scarcity and high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati market.. "You are, thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as a whole in this district and your being at large has jeopardised the maintenance of such supplies and services to the communtty." The grounds of detention served on the petitioner Raj Kumar Deorah read as follows : ''That you being a close associate of Shri Prabhu Dayal Deora sfo Late Basudeo Deora of Zoo Road, Gauhati and in the active management of Basudeo, Fancy Bazar. Gauhati, are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit. You are also responsible for unauthorised hoarding of rice and sugar in the premises of Messrs. Deora Flour and Rice Mills at Zoo Road and Messrs. Srinivas Basudco at Fancy Bazar for the sole purpose of selling these commodities at higher prices in and outside Gauhati for profitcering. . "That on 25-7-1973 the following quantities of paddy and rice were unearthed and seized from ·your unauthorised possession at Zoo Road Deora Flour and Rice Mills premises)- 1. Soli ll~ddy H 2. Ahu nRddy 3. s~li Mota Rice (Arua) .. 147bags •. 207b:~gs •. 239 baas .• 8b11gs 4. Ahu rice S. Joha rice , ~-L447SupCI/74 .. 15 bags · 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 ) 2 S.C.R. ··That on 4-1-1972, 191 bags of sugar were seized by the supply officials of Gauhati from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. "That on 16-5-1972 the supply officials seized 105.03 quintals of rice from your unauthorised possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudeo, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati. "That you indulged in such trade actiVities which created ::JCute scarcity and high prices of rice and sugar in Gauhati market "You arc, thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as a whole in this district and your being at large has jeopardized the· maintenance of such supplies and services to the community." · On 5-8-1973. each of the petitioners sent his representation to the State Government through the jail authorities of Gauhati raising vari- ·OUs grounds against the validity of the order of detention. Both representations were rejected by the State Government on 28·8-1973 and their cases, together with their representations were sent by the . State Government to the Advisory Board constituted under s.9 of th~ Act. Three contentions have been advanced on behaH of the petitioners in this Court: (!) that the grounds of detention were vague and so 'the petitioners were denied of their constitutional right to make effective representations against tbe orders m detention: (2) that there was inordinate delay in disposing of the representations by the Government and that was sufficient to vitiate the detention of the petitioners, and ( 3) that .the detaining authority did not apply its mind to the fac!s nf the cases to find out whether it was necessary to detain the petitioners for preventin~ them from acti~ in a manner prejudicial to the· maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The first ground for detention· states that the petitioners are r:sponsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in Deora Hour and Rice Mills and smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for selling it for earning- undue profit. The period during which the unauthorised millin~ of paddy has been carried on was not stated in the grounds of detention nor is there anything to indicate when ilnd how the re~ultailt' rice was smuggled to Meghalaya for earning undue profit. The fact that the grounds communicated to each of the petitioners men· tion the seizure of paddy and rice from the unauthorised possession of the petitioners from the mill in question on 25-7-1973 gives no particulars as regards unauthorised milling of paddy or the smuggling of the resultant rice to Mcghalaya for earning undue profit. The first ground of ·detentiOn was, therdore, vague and that is sufficient to vitiate the detention orders. The learned Attorney General, appearing for the respondents diJ not contend that the first ground of detention. taken by itself, was not vague, if smuggling of_ rice to Meghalaya referred to the past activities of the petitioners. But he said that the reasonable way . to B c D G H n c n F G H P D. DE(.)RAH v. DIST. MAGISTRATE (Malhtw~ ./.,) 19 understand that ground is to read it in such. a way as to imply that the smugglin~ of the resultant rice to Meghalaya was ·for earning undue profit and that smugglin~ was only the purpose for which unauthorised milling of paddy was done. ·In the. return filed on behalf of !h(: icsporidents, this is how the ground is read : "Detailed particulars have been given in the grounds as to the- detection of unauthorised paddy and milled rice in the locked godowns of M/s. Deorab Rtce and flour Mills, Gauhati :and in view of the circumstances stated in the previous paragraphs, the purpose of hoarding rice and milling paddy in unauthorised manner was to smuggle the goods for utulue profits. The ground clearly and unambiguously states that the ·petitioner is responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy in M/s. Deorah Rice and Flour Mills at Zoo Road, Gauhati fer the purpose of smuggling the rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profits. The materials on which the latter part of the grounds i.e. smuggling of result- :\nt rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profits is based arc the materials which have been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and, as held earlier by this Hon'ble Court, arc not necessary to be mentioned in the grounds''. There can be no doubt that the first ground postulated that the ]'1.!titiOI\Cts were indulging in unauthorised milling o( paddy and also in smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earrun~ undue profit. As already stated no particular instance· of smuuJing was given, nor the period during which the. smuggling operation· waa carried on m~n · tioncd in the ground. We could have understood the contention i)F· the learned Attorney General if the ground had stated that the petitioners were responsible for unauthorized milling of paddy and that was ·for the purpose of smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for ~arning undue profit. Then it could have been said that no particulars about the smuggling would be available as it was only a natural inference . of the .purpose of the unauthorized milling of paddy, We would have to :1dopt the vocabulary of humpty dumpty if we are to read the ground in fhe way in which it has been read in the return filed on behalf of the respondents. We have no hesitation in ho!dirtg that the fir~t ground is an independent ground and refers to th(p~t activities of the petitioners nanlely unauthorised miUin'-t of, paddy :irld. the smuggling. of the .res:ultant nee to Meghalaya for earnmg undue .profit. · It was said that grounds are nothing but "conclusion of facts and not complete recital of facts'' and when article 22(5) of the Constitution says that the grounds on which the detention order has been made must. be communicated to the detenu it can only mean that the detaining authority must supply him with his conclusions of facts and the dictum of Kania, CJ., writing for the majority, in the Staff ?1 Bomb(ly v. ,Atnza Ram Sridhar ~aidya(l) was cited in support of • t. But we thmk that the learned 1udge was careful enough to point out that if the representation has to be intelligible to meet the charges contained in the grounds, the information conveyed must be sufficj~nt (I) [19SJ] S.C.R. 167, at 178. 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ( 1974] 2 S.C.R. to attain that end. In other words, the majority decision in that case wumed that the reqUirement of article 22(5) will not be satisfied uruess the detenu is gtven the eaniest opp(>ctunity to make a repre· sentation against the detention and that no opportunity to make the representation can be etfec.ive unless the detenu is furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of detention. In Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State o1 Delhi and Otl~ersl 1 ) Patanjali Sastri, J. speaking for the Court assumed that in Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's Case(2 ) the majority decision was that the detenli has the right to be furnisned witn full particUlars to make an eftective representation. The Court also said that the constitutional requirement must be satisfied in respect of each of the grounds communicated. As one of the grounds communicated to the petitioners is found to be vague, the detention orders must be pronounced to be bad on the basis of a series of decisions of this Court (see The State of Bt>mbay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya(l); Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj v. The State of Delhi and Others( 2 ); Motilal laill v. The State of Bihar(~)~ and Mishrilal Jain v. The Distr.ict Magistrate, Kamrup and others(•). These decisions followed the decision of the Federal Court in Keshav Tnlpade v. Emperor (6) where it was said: "If a detaining authority gave four reasons for detaining a man, without distinguishing between them, and any two or three of the reasons are held to be bad, it can never be certain to what extent the bad reasons operated on tbe mind of the authority or whether the detention order would have been made at all if only one or two good reasons had been before them." We cannot predicate that if the fust ground was excluded, the detaining authority would have passed the order. The fact that one of the grounds mentions that paddy and rice had been unearthed and seized from the unauthorized possession of the petitioners from the rice mill in question on the date of the detention order would not necessarily lead to the inference that the petitioners have been indulging in unauthorized milling of paddy, much less that they were smuggling the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit. It cannot, therefore, be said that the first ground, namely, that the petitioners are responsible for unauthorised milling of paddy and smuggling of the resultant rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit, is a conclusion ·reached from the fact of seizure of paddy and rice on 25-7-1973 or the seizure of rice on 16-5-1972 "from their unauthorized possession at Messrs. Srinivas Basudco, Fancy Bazar, Gauhati." These are not only cases where one of the grounds of detention was vague, but also cases where the detaining authority did not apply its mind at aU to one of the grounds of detention. If the detaining authority had no particulars before it as regards the smuggling operation, how was it possible for it to have been satisfied that the petitioners (I) [19531 S.C.R. 708. (3) [19681 3 S.C.R. 587. (5) A.T.R. 1943 F.C.1, ar R. (2) [1951] s. c. R 167 at m. (4) [1971] 3 s.c.c. 693. A B c D E G H A n c D E P. D. DF.OR.AH v. DIST· MAGISTRATE (Mathew, /.) 21 were smuggling rice to Meghalaya for earning undue profit ? U there was any particular instance of smuggling of the kind in the mind of the detaining authority, it would have been possible for it to specify th;: particular instance at least in the grounds. We think that the fact that the Advisory Board would have to consider the representations of the petitioners where they have also raised the contention that the grounds are vague would not in any way prevent this Court from exercising its jurisdiction under article 32 ot the Constitution. The detenu hJS a rignt under article 22(5) of the Constitution to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of detention. Th Jt constitutional right includes within its compass the right to be furnished with adequate particulars of the grounds of the detention order. And, if their constitutional right Is violated, they have every right to come to this Court under article 32 complaining that their detention is bad as violating their fundamental right As to what 'the Ad\isory Board might do in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not the concern of this Court. This Court is only concerned with the question whether any of the 2rPunds cPmmun:cJted to the petitioners was vague which would preclude them from making an effective representation. We do not thiD.k ~t because the represcn~· tions of the petitioners are pending ~onsideration before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board would also go into the question of th;; vagueness of the grounds communicated to them, this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under article 32. In other WIOrds we cannot agree with the proposition that because the Advisory Board was sclzcd of the matter when the 'Mit petitions were filed and would also con· sider the contention of the .petitioners in their representations that the grounds were vague. we should not interfere with the orders of detention on the ~re that one of the w-ounds communicated .to the tx:litioners was va_ple. The Attorney General strongly relied on the decision of this Court in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D'Souza v. The-State of Bombay(t). There it was held that if the ·nature of the activity for whk.h dttention was ordered wa~ such that no better particulars could be given. the F _ deteution order cannot be struck down as bad. In that case the grotmd of detention was that with the financial help of the Portuguese Governcent tho petitioner there was carrying on espionage activities with the . help of underground \\"Orkers and that be was also collecting intell' gence about seturity arrangements on the border area and was ma.kh.g the · intelligence available to .the Portuguese authorities. In answer to the contention that the ground was vague as no {larticulctrs were furnished, the Court first referred to the majority dccis1on in Atma Ram SridluJr Vaidyds Case( 2) as laying down that the constitutional right of a G II cletenu under article 22(5) consists of two components, namely, the right to be furnished with the grounds of detention and the right to be afford~ the ·~arl!est ?Pportun}ty for making .represe!ltation a~inst the detention which unphes the nght to be furnished Wlth adequ~te parti· culars of the grounds of detention to enable proper representation bein~ made and ·then said (at p. 391) :~ . · "'Ibese rightS involve correspc)nding obligations on tho part of the detaining authority. It follows that the authority (I) [1956) S.C.R. 382:" (2) [19.51] s:c.R.167&1 178. _,. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 2 S.C.R. under a constitutional obligation· to furnish rca.sonubly definite grounds, as well as adequate particulars then and there, or shortly thereafter. But the right of the detenu to be furnished particulars, is subject to the limitation under article 22(6) whereby disclosure of facts considered to be against public interest cannot be required. It is however to be observed that under article 22(6) the facts which cannot be required to be disclosed are these "which such authority consider' to be against public interest to disclose.'' No question of public interest is involved in the case in hand. At any rateJ no such plea has been put forward in the return. Whether w-: would lwvc harkened to any such plea in this case, if 'put forward, is ;.mother matter. Any gencntl observations in that judgment will hJ\'e to be read in the li.ght of the paramount consideration o( publil: interest involved therein. Nor are we satisfied that the fact that the petitioners could haw :iskcd for further partculars but that they did not do so, would be enou&h to salvage the orders of detention. The right to call for parti<:ulars has b~cn recognized in Alma Ram Sridhar Vaidya's Case (1} as ftowiog from the constitutional right to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to •1akc representation. This Court said in Lawrence Joachim Joseph D' Souuts Casee) that if the grounds are n;Jt sufficient to enable the