# Raj Bahadur Kanwar Raj .Nath and 0th.rs v. Pramod C. Bhatt., Custodian of Evacuee Properey Venkatarama Ayyar ]

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 983
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955-11-11
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raj-bahadur-kanwar-raj-nath-and-0th-rs-v-pramod-c-bhatt-custodian-of-evacuee-1281
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
983
ment before us that those rights are sought to be
agitated. Under the
circumstances, we must decline
to consider them. It will be suflicient if we observe
that the rights of the appellants, if any, other than
those arising out of the lease, are left open to the
determinati9n
of
the
appropriate
authorities, and
that nothing in our decision should be taken as a
pronouncement on those rights.
In the result, the
ap~al fails and is dismissed with
costs.
SHRIMATI VIDYA VERMA, THROUGH NEXT
FRIEND R. V. S. MANI
v.
DR. SHIV NARAIN VERMA.
[S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI. fAGANNADHA·
oAs and B. P. SINHA JJ.l
Fundamental Ri[!ht, Infringement of-Detention by private person-ls.iue of writ-Power of Supreme Court-Constitution of [ndia,
Arts. 21, 3:t.
No question of infringement of any fundamental
right under
Art. 21 arises where the detention complained of is by a private per-
>On and not by a State or under the authority or orders of a State.
and the Supreme Court will not, therefore, entertain an application
for a writ of habeas corpus, under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
Consequently a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a
writ of habeas corpus founded on
Art. 21 and directed against a
father for alleged detention of his daughter does not lie.
A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras ([1950] S.C.R. 88) and
P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank. of India ([1952] S.C.R. 391), relied on.
ORIGINAL
JuR1so1cT10N : Petition
No.
262 of 1955.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ
in the nature of Habeds Corpus.
R. V. S. Mani. the next friend, in person.
M. C. Setal.vad, Attorney-General for India (G. N.
Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him).
N aunit Lal, for the respondent.
1955
Raj Bahadur
Kanwar Raj .Nath
and 0th.rs
v.
Pramod C. Bhatt.,
Custodian of
Evacuee Properey
Venkatarama
Ayyar ].
1955
.November 11
1955
Shrimati Vi<lya
V mna, through
Lnext friend
R., V. S. Mani
v.
Dr. Shiv Narain
Verma
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
1955. November 11. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BosE J .-This is a petition under article 32 of the
Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was presented by Mr. R. V. S. Mani, an advocate
of the Nagpur High Court, on behalf of Shrimati
Vidya Verma and was directed against her father Dr.
Shiv Narayaq Verma of Nagpur.
Mr. Mani had no power of attorney from the lady
and when the office pointed out that he could not
present
a petition without
producing
the
necessary
authority he amended the petition and described himself as the next friend of the lady.
When the matter first came up for hearing we
directed a notice
to issue to the father but later the
same day it was brought to our notice that the opposite party was not either the Union of India or a
State, nor wa~ it some official acting under the orders
of one or the other, but a private person. The question therefore arose of our power under article 32 to
issue a writ of. this kind against a private party. Ac-
. cordingly, before the notice was sent out we recalled
it and set the matter down for further hearing.
Mr. Mani appeared again on the appointed date and
was robed as he had been on the
previous occasion.
He was asked to clarify his position and when he said
he had no power of attorney and explained that he
was appearing in a private capacity as next friend he
was told that at the next hearing he must address the
Court without his robes.
He was
also warned that
if he lost he might have to bear the costs of the other
side
personally.
After hearing Mr. Mani for a
time
we decided to fix a date for the hearing of a preliminary question only,
namely,
whether a fundamental
right is involved when the detention complained of is
by a private person and not by a State or under the
authority or orders
of a
State. We directed that
notices be issued to the .opposite party as well as to
the Attorney-General of India.
At the adjourned hearing Mr. Mani appe;ired in person, unrobed as directed, but with the advocate

## Text

2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
983
ment before us that those rights are sought to be
agitated. Under the
circumstances, we must decline
to consider them. It will be suflicient if we observe
that the rights of the appellants, if any, other than
those arising out of the lease, are left open to the
determinati9n
of
the
appropriate
authorities, and
that nothing in our decision should be taken as a
pronouncement on those rights.
In the result, the
ap~al fails and is dismissed with
costs.
SHRIMATI VIDYA VERMA, THROUGH NEXT
FRIEND R. V. S. MANI
v.
DR. SHIV NARAIN VERMA.
[S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI. fAGANNADHA·
oAs and B. P. SINHA JJ.l
Fundamental Ri[!ht, Infringement of-Detention by private person-ls.iue of writ-Power of Supreme Court-Constitution of [ndia,
Arts. 21, 3:t.
No question of infringement of any fundamental
right under
Art. 21 arises where the detention complained of is by a private per-
>On and not by a State or under the authority or orders of a State.
and the Supreme Court will not, therefore, entertain an application
for a writ of habeas corpus, under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
Consequently a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution for a
writ of habeas corpus founded on
Art. 21 and directed against a
father for alleged detention of his daughter does not lie.
A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras ([1950] S.C.R. 88) and
P. D. Shamdasani v. Central Bank. of India ([1952] S.C.R. 391), relied on.
ORIGINAL
JuR1so1cT10N : Petition
No.
262 of 1955.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ
in the nature of Habeds Corpus.
R. V. S. Mani. the next friend, in person.
M. C. Setal.vad, Attorney-General for India (G. N.
Joshi and Porus A. Mehta, with him).
N aunit Lal, for the respondent.
1955
Raj Bahadur
Kanwar Raj .Nath
and 0th.rs
v.
Pramod C. Bhatt.,
Custodian of
Evacuee Properey
Venkatarama
Ayyar ].
1955
.November 11
1955
Shrimati Vi<lya
V mna, through
Lnext friend
R., V. S. Mani
v.
Dr. Shiv Narain
Verma
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
1955. November 11. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
BosE J .-This is a petition under article 32 of the
Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was presented by Mr. R. V. S. Mani, an advocate
of the Nagpur High Court, on behalf of Shrimati
Vidya Verma and was directed against her father Dr.
Shiv Narayaq Verma of Nagpur.
Mr. Mani had no power of attorney from the lady
and when the office pointed out that he could not
present
a petition without
producing
the
necessary
authority he amended the petition and described himself as the next friend of the lady.
When the matter first came up for hearing we
directed a notice
to issue to the father but later the
same day it was brought to our notice that the opposite party was not either the Union of India or a
State, nor wa~ it some official acting under the orders
of one or the other, but a private person. The question therefore arose of our power under article 32 to
issue a writ of. this kind against a private party. Ac-
. cordingly, before the notice was sent out we recalled
it and set the matter down for further hearing.
Mr. Mani appeared again on the appointed date and
was robed as he had been on the
previous occasion.
He was asked to clarify his position and when he said
he had no power of attorney and explained that he
was appearing in a private capacity as next friend he
was told that at the next hearing he must address the
Court without his robes.
He was
also warned that
if he lost he might have to bear the costs of the other
side
personally.
After hearing Mr. Mani for a
time
we decided to fix a date for the hearing of a preliminary question only,
namely,
whether a fundamental
right is involved when the detention complained of is
by a private person and not by a State or under the
authority or orders
of a
State. We directed that
notices be issued to the .opposite party as well as to
the Attorney-General of India.
At the adjourned hearing Mr. Mani appe;ired in person, unrobed as directed, but with the advocate on
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
985
record sitting by his side. He asked
for permission
to address us himself. We declined to hear him unless he
discharged
the advocate on record. He did
that on the spot and then proceeded to address us in
person.
As the question that arises here has been discussed
at length in two earlier decisions of
this
Court
we need not examine the
matter
in any detail.
The fundamental right that is said
to be infringed
is the one conferred by article 21 : the right to personal liberty. In A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras( 1 )
four of the six learned Judges who were in that case
held
that the word "law"
in article 21
referred to
State-made law and not to law in the abstract. They
rejected the contention that this was the same as the
due process clause in the American Constitution. One
learned Judge dissented and one expressed no opinion
on
this
point. Patanjali Sastri, J. (as he then was)
said at page 204 that as
a rule constitutional safeguards are directed against the State and its organs
and
that protection against violation of rights by
individuals musf be sought in the ordinary law ; and
S. R. Das, J. dealing with the question of preventive
detention said at page 324
that article 21 protects
a
person against preventive detention by the executive
with1mt the sanction of a law made by the legislature.
This principle was applied to articles 19(1)(f) and
31(1)
by a Bench of five Judges in P. D. Shamdasani
v. Central Bank of India( ) who held that violation of
rights
of property by a
private individual
is
not
within the purview of these articles, therefore a person whose rights of property are infringed by a private
individual must seek his remedy under the ordinary
law and
not
under article 32. Article 21 was
not
directly involved but the learned Judges referring to
article 31(1) said at page 394:
~'It is clear that it is a declaration of the fundamental right of private property in the same negative form in which
article
21
declares
the fundamental right to life and liberty. There is no express
reference to the State in article 21. But could it be
(;U [195!>] S.C.R. 88.
(2) [195i] S.C.R. 391,
1955
Shrimati V idya
Verma, through
next friend
R. V. S. Mani
v.
Dr. Shio Narain
Vmna
Bost].
1955
Skrimati Vid;'a
Verma. through
ntxtfriend
R. V. S. Mani
v.
Dr. Shiv Narain
Verma
Bose].
986
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.[1955]
suggested on that account that that article was intended to afford protection
to life and personal liberty
against violation by private individuals ? The words
'except
by procedure established by law'
plainly
exclude such a suggestion".
They held that the language of article 31 ( 1) was similar and decided that article 31(1) did not apply to
invasions of a right by a private individual and consequently no writ under article 32 would lie in such a
case. For the same reasons we hold that the present
petition which is
founded on article 21
does not lie
under article 32. It is accordingly dismissed.
As regards costs Mr. Mani has no power of attorney
and has chosen to appear as next friend despite the
warning given to him at the last hearing.
This is the fourth time the matter is being agitated
in the Courts. The first attempt was an application
under section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code
made by the person who, according to Mr. Mani, is
the husband of the lady in whose interests he says he
is acting. It was filed on 10-9-1954 and asked for a
search warrant for
the recovery
of the lady. The
application was dismissed and a revision filed against
the order of dismissal also failed.
The same gentleman then applied to the High Court
at Nagpur on 18-10-1954 under section 491 of the
Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Judges examined the lady, who is 25 years old, in person, on
20-10-1954
and on the
strength of her statement,
which they recorded, they held that she was not
under any restraint either in the house or outside and
so dismissed the application on 10-11-1954.
Mr. Mani then took up the cudgels and filed a second
petition in the High Court on 6-12-1954,
also under
section 491. The learned Judges again examined the
lady, this time on two successive days. On 20-12-1954
she said that she did not want to live with her father
but wanted to live with her uncle at Waraseoni.
She appeared again the next day and clarified this by
saying that she would go to her uncle in the company
of her father. She said that she had no discomfon
in living witn her father but was not at ease with him
-"·
2 ~.C.R.'
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
__ .. 937
and \vould have more peace of mind with her uncle.
She also said :
"I have no need of any counsel and have nothing
to talk to Shri R. V. S. Mani".
The girl was allowed to go to her uncle. Mr. Mani
then applied for leave to withdraw the petition. · This
was allowed on 24-1-1955 and no order was made
about costs.
Then cam:e the present -petition on 22-8-1955. The
petition does not discl05e that Mr. Mani . made any
attempt to consult the person who he says is the husband of the lady (a fact which is disputed and on
which we express no opinion) nor does it show that
he made any attempt to contact either
th~. lady or
her father or even her uncle. He has had three hearings in this Court despite the warning he was given
about costs
and the
learned - Attorney-General - was
also asked by us
to appear. When the arguments
were fully concluded and Mr. Mani found
that we
were against him he adopted the same tactics as in
the Nagpur High Court and asked for permission to
withdraw the petition.
That was
refused. We invited him to show cause why he should not be made
to pay the costs and have heard all he has to say. _ In
the circumstances set out above, we fed this is ·a case
in which he should be made to pay the costs personally.
We dismiss the petition· and direct that Mr. Mani
pay the costs of the opposite party personally in addition to those of the learned Attorney-General and that
he bear his own, also personally. •
8-3> :;.c. India.(59
1955
Shrimali Vidya
Vtrma, through
mxlfriend
R. V. S. !1.fani
v.
Dr. S/,iD Narain
Verma
Bost].