# SHYAMAL MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 517
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-09-01
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 205 of 1971
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam ~ P. Jaganmohan Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/shyamal-mondal-v-state-of-west-bengal-5388
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 19 of 1970,
s. 3(1)-0rder under-Validity-Activities mentioned in s. 3(2) are b;v
definition prejudicial to secrlr'ity· cf Sf-μte as well as to public order .
•
The petitioner was detained under an order dated March 2, 1971
passed by the District .Magistrate,
-4-Pargana, West Bengal,
under
sub-s. (i) read witl sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention
of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.
The order 'stated that the District
Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner- shoold. -
be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order
as provided ins. 3(1). In the grounds of detention ·supplied to the petitioner three incidents of violence at railway stations in whl~ the petitioner was.. alleged to have participated and used explosives \Vere mentioned.
In his representations against being detained the petitioner did
not allege any mala fides against the administration but only denied that
he took part in the violent activities.
In sup\iort of the writ petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution chaljenging the order of its detention
it was urged that while the impugned order mentioned his activities as
being prejudicial to public order as well as
security of the State,
the
instances given in the grounds of detention only mentioned activities prejudicial to pu)>lic order.
The detaining authority had thuS taken into
account extraneous and irrelevant matters in paS'Sing the order of detention. According to the appellant it is only matters referred to in sub-c. (i)
of cl. (a) of.$. 3(2) of.the Act which will relate to the activities adversely
afiecting the security of the State, and none of these matters had been
mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner.
HELD : The contention of the petitioner that it is only sub-cl. (1)
of cl. (a) of l!. 3(2) which deals with matters adversely affecting the
security of the- State could not be accepted.
In fact that very subctau.se refers to the matters herein as affecting the security of the State
or the maintenance .of public order. Therefore in this case the grounds
of deteRtion could not be held to be vague nor could the order of detel<·
tion be held to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner must hl!ve
been detained only to prevent him from acting in any manner ptejudlcial
to the maintenance of public order and not to the security of the State.
lo particular under cl. ( d} of s. 2 a person will be considered to be·
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State dr the maintenance of public order, if be commits any offence under the &plosivp
Suootaoces Act, 1908.
The various incidents· mentioned in the grounds
of detention may also come under cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3. Further
the said grounds clearly bring the activities of the petitione'r under s. 3
of the &plosive Substances Act. [523 H-524 E]
Accordingly the detention of the petitillner must be held to be valid·
and the petition under Art. 32 must be dismissed.
'
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 205 of 1971.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972) 1 S.C.R.
Y. Mayakrishnan, for the petitioner.
A
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu, for die
respondent.

## Text

B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHYAMAL MONDAL
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
September 1, 1971
,
511
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM ~
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.]
West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 19 of 1970,
s. 3(1)-0rder under-Validity-Activities mentioned in s. 3(2) are b;v
definition prejudicial to secrlr'ity· cf Sf-μte as well as to public order .
•
The petitioner was detained under an order dated March 2, 1971
passed by the District .Magistrate,
-4-Pargana, West Bengal,
under
sub-s. (i) read witl sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention
of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.
The order 'stated that the District
Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner- shoold. -
be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order
as provided ins. 3(1). In the grounds of detention ·supplied to the petitioner three incidents of violence at railway stations in whl~ the petitioner was.. alleged to have participated and used explosives \Vere mentioned.
In his representations against being detained the petitioner did
not allege any mala fides against the administration but only denied that
he took part in the violent activities.
In sup\iort of the writ petition
under Art. 32 of the Constitution chaljenging the order of its detention
it was urged that while the impugned order mentioned his activities as
being prejudicial to public order as well as
security of the State,
the
instances given in the grounds of detention only mentioned activities prejudicial to pu)>lic order.
The detaining authority had thuS taken into
account extraneous and irrelevant matters in paS'Sing the order of detention. According to the appellant it is only matters referred to in sub-c. (i)
of cl. (a) of.$. 3(2) of.the Act which will relate to the activities adversely
afiecting the security of the State, and none of these matters had been
mentioned in the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner.
HELD : The contention of the petitioner that it is only sub-cl. (1)
of cl. (a) of l!. 3(2) which deals with matters adversely affecting the
security of the- State could not be accepted.
In fact that very subctau.se refers to the matters herein as affecting the security of the State
or the maintenance .of public order. Therefore in this case the grounds
of deteRtion could not be held to be vague nor could the order of detel<·
tion be held to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner must hl!ve
been detained only to prevent him from acting in any manner ptejudlcial
to the maintenance of public order and not to the security of the State.
lo particular under cl. ( d} of s. 2 a person will be considered to be·
acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State dr the maintenance of public order, if be commits any offence under the &plosivp
Suootaoces Act, 1908.
The various incidents· mentioned in the grounds
of detention may also come under cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3. Further
the said grounds clearly bring the activities of the petitione'r under s. 3
of the &plosive Substances Act. [523 H-524 E]
Accordingly the detention of the petitillner must be held to be valid·
and the petition under Art. 32 must be dismissed.
'
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 205 of 1971.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ
in the nature of habeas corpus.
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1972) 1 S.C.R.
Y. Mayakrishnan, for the petitioner.
A
S. P. Mitra, G. S. Chatterjee for Sukumar Basu, for die
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vatdialingam, J.
This petition under Art. 32 of the
B
Constitution challenges the validity of the order dated March 2,
1971 passed by the District ~agistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of
the powers conferred on him under sub-section ( 1) read with
·sub-section( 3) of s. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent
Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX of 1970 (hereinafter to be
referred as the Act), directing the detention of the petitioner.
The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was
satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained
with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial
to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as
provided by s. 3 (1) of the Act.
c
According to the affidavit in reply of the District Magistrate,
D
he reported under s. 3 ( 4) of the Act to the State Government on
March 3, 1971 regarding the fact of his having passed the order
of detention together with the grounds of detention and all other
particulars having a bearing on the name.
It is further stated
that the petitioner was arrested on March 5, 1971 and was served
on the same day with the order of detention together with the
E
grounds for passing the order of <fotention. The petitioner was
also informed that he is entitled to make a representation to the
State Government against •the order of detention and that such
representation is to be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home
(Special) Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail.
He was further informed
that his case will be placed under s. 10 of the Act before the
Advisory Board within 30 days from -the date of the order of
detention.
He was also informed that under s. 11 of the Act, the
Advisory Board shall, if so desired by him, hear him in person
and that the petitioner must intimate the said desire to be heard
in the representations that he may make to the State Government.
The State Government considered the report of the District
Magistrate together with o_ther materials placed before it and
approved, on March 11, 1971 as required bys. 3(4) of the Act,
the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate.
F
G
On the same day, as require(! by s. 3 ( 5) the State Government
sent the necessary report to the Central Government.
The. State H
Go'\>ernment on April 3, 1971 placed the case of the petitioner
before the Advisory Board.
/;..;.;..-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHYAMAL MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
519
( Vaidialingam, J.)
The petitioner sent two representations dated March 17, and
April 19, 1971 denying the allegations made in the grounds for
passing the order of detention and pleaded that he was innocent.
He has admitted in these representations that he was arrested on
March 5, 1971.
In neither of these representations did the petitioner make a request that he should be provided an opportunity
of being heard in person by the Advisory Board.
The State Government rejected the representations of the petitioner, but forwarded them to the Advisory Board for being considered.
The
Advisory Board after considering the materials placed before it
relating to the detention of the petitioner including the representations made by him on March 17, 1971 and April 19, 1971,
submitted its report on May 11, 1971 to the State Government
stating that it is of opiniop that there is sufficient cause for the
detention of the petitioner.
The State Government passed an
orde.r on July 12, 1971 under s. 12(1) of the Act confirming the
order of detention dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District
Magistrate and directed that the petitioner's detention shall be
continued till the expiration of twelve months from the date of his
detention.
The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the
ground that he has never committed any offence nor has he been
involved in any illegal activities as alleged in the grounds of detention.
He has further stated that the various allegations mentioned
against him are false and that he never participated in any of the
incidents referred to in the grounds of detention.
The petitioner
has further stated that he is innocent and that he has been illegally
detained.
It will be noted from his averments in the writ petition that
except denying that the allegations are false and that he has never
participated in any of those incidents referred to in the grounds of
detention, he has not alleged any mala fides nor challenged the
jurisdiction of the officer who passed the order of detention or the
various proceedings connected therewith.
Under s. 3 (1) of the Act, what is required is the satisfaction
of the State Government or the relevant District Magistrate, as
the case may be, of the necessity to detain a person with a view
to .prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security
of the State or the maintenance of.public order. In the order of
detention dated March 2, 1971, the District Magistrate has stated
that he was satisfied that with a view to prevent the petitioner from
acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or
t!ie maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain the petitioner and that the order was being passed in exercise of the powers
cotiferred on the District Magistrate by sub-section ( 1) read with
sub-section ( 3) of s. 3 of the Act.
In the grounds of detention
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
furnished to the petitioner on March 5, 1971 along with the order
A
dated March 2, 1971 the following particulars have been .given :
"(I) That, on 26-1-71 between 11.00 and 12.31
hours, you along with your associates being armed v.ith
bombs, ballasts, pipe guns, lathis etc., assembled at
Piali Railway Station and created terror among the
passengers by charging bombs and showering ballasts
indiscriminately and also moving from compartment to
compartment of train Nos. SC 193 UP and SC 195 UP
in search of your rivals, shouting that "if I get the Rascal, I will kill them" and in doing so you caused injury
to some innocent passengers and broke the glass panes
of driver's cab of SC 195 Up. You created disturbance
of the public order thereby.
(2) That, on 2-2-71 at about 17.39 hours, you
along with your associates, being an'ned with bomb,,,
daggers etc., attacked and assaulted the guard of train
No. SC 199 Up at Champahati Railway Station and also
created terror among the passengers by charging a
bomb.
You created disturbanc.e of the public order
thereby.
( 3) That on 9-2-71 at about 13.1 S hours you and
your associates charged bombs and ballasts on duty
Police party at Jadavpur Railway Station as they seized
10 bags of rice weighing about·J quintals from SC 195
Up, while you were taking the said stock to Calcutta
rationing area illegally by train. Your attack grew so
violent that the Police party had to open fire upon you
in self-defence.
Your violent activities created serious
panic in the Station area and the public order was disturbed thereby."
In the two representations dated March 17 and April 19, 1971
made to the State Government, the petitioner after refering to the
fact that he was arrested on March 5. 1971 has denied that he was
involved in any of the types of violeiit activities referred to In the
grounds for detention.
He has further stated that he is leading
B
c
D
E
F
a very honest life doing the work of mason and that the allegations
G
made against him are false.
As we have already mentioned, the "petitioner did not ask.for
an oportunity of being heard in person by the Advisory Board.
He has not also alleged in these representations and ma1a (ides in
passing the order of de.ntion.
H
·The District Magistrate who passed the order of detendon has
filed a counter-affidavit.
Tlie District Magistrate has stated that
the petitioner is a rice smuggler operating in Subarban Railway
A
B
SHYAMAL MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
521
(Vaidiallngam, J.)
trains in Southern Section of Eastern Railway and that he along
with his associates armed with bombs and other deadly weapons
attacked the passengers and the guard of railway trains and created
terror by hurling bombs in Champahati and Piali Railway Stations.
The District Magistrate further proceeds to state that the petitioner
was detained for acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of
the State or the maintenance of public order in the Jadavpur area
of the distric.t of 24 Parganas for his having taken a leading and
active part in violent activities.
It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the activities of the petitioner disturbed the public
order and were so persistent and violent that he became a terror
to the residents of the locality and the railway travelling public
C
and that but for his detention he could not have been prevented
from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or
maintenance of public order.
It is further stated that the deponent after receiving reliable information relating to the anti-social
and prejudicial activities of the petitioner and after carefully considering these materials, he was fully satisfied that the petitionet
D
E
was engaged and was indulging in activities which were prejudicial
to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order,
and that his detention was essential.
On being thus satisfied. the
District Magistrate proceeds to state that he bona fide passed the
order of detention on his own satisfaction, judgment and reasoning. The counter-affidavit then proo~eds to state about the order
of confirmation passed by the State Government and other matters
resulting finally in the order passed by the Government on July
12, 1971.
lt may be pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the counter·
affidavit it has been mentioned that the Advisory Board submitted
its report on May 11, 1971 "after hearing the petitioner."
TI1is
statement is obviously wrong because the petitioner never asked for
F
being heard in person.
The Advisory Board also does not say
that the petitioner was heard in person.
The counsel appearing
for the State has expressed his regret regarding this
mistaken
averment made in the counter-affidavit.
But that does not in any
manner adv.ance the case of the petitioner, as we will presently
show.
G
We have already referred to the fact that the petitioner has
merely denied his being associated with the incidents referred to
in the grounds of detention.
We are satisfied from the averments
made by the District Magistrate in the counter-affidavit. which
have not been further controverted by the petitioner by filing any
rejoinder that the order of detention has been validly and proH
pcrly passed.
Mr. V. Mayakrishnan, Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of
the petitioner has urged that every one of the grounds bas referred
to the activrties of the petitioner having resulted in disturbance of
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] l S.C.Il.
public order. But the order of detention refers to the fact that
A
the District Magistrate was of the view that the petitioner should
be detained _with a view to preventing him from acting in any
manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance
of public order.
No ground showing as _to how any activity of the
petitioner is prejudicial to the security of the State justifying the
order of detention has been furnished to the petitioner.
ThereB
fore, according to the learned counsel, the order of detention is
illegal inasmuch as the petitioner has not been informed of any
grounds as to how his activities are prejudicial to the security of
the State. Inasmuch as both the matters have been mentioned in
the order of detention, it must be that the detaining authority has
taken into account extrenuous and irrelevant matters in passing C
the order of detention.
In particular, according to the learned
counsel, it is only the matters referred to in sub-cl. (1) of cl. (a)
of s. 3 (2) of the Act that will relate to the activities adversely
affecting the security of the State.
None of those matters have
been mentioned in the grounds furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, it is not clear whether the detaining authority passed the
order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejuD
dicial to the Security of the State or for maintenance of public
order.
For all these, reasons, the counsel urged, the order of
detention is illegal.
Mr. S. P. Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the State drew
our attention to the provisions contained ins. 3(2) of the Act
and pointed out that the various acts mentioned in the grounds
E
of detention come within the expressions "acting in any manner
prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public
order."
In particular he relied upon cl. ( d) of s. 2 and pointed
out that the petitioner has committed an offence under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, (Act No. 6 of 1908) and, therefore,
his· detention was legal.
F
We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
As already mentioned, under s. 3 ( 1)
of the Act, what is required is the satisfaction of the State Government or the relevant District Magistrate, as the case may be, of the
necessity to detain a person with a view to prevent him from acting
in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the mainG
tenance of public order, As defined by sub-section (2) of s. 3,
the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security
of the State or the maintenance of public order means ;
"(a) using or instigating any person
by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, to use, any lethal weaponH
(i) to promote or propagate any cause or ideology,
the promotion or propagation of which affects,
"
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SHYAMAL MONDAL V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
523
( Vaidialingam, J.)
or is likely to affect, adversely the security of the
State or the maintenance of public order. or
(ii) to overthrow or to overawe the Government
established by law in India.
Explanation-In this clause, "lethal weapon"
includes fire-arms. explosive
or corresive substances,
swords, spears, daggers, bows and arrows; or
(b) committing mischief, within the meaning of
section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, by fire or any
explosive substance on any property of Government or
any local authority or any corporation owned or controlled by Government or any
University or other
educational institution
or on
any
public
building,
where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is
likely to disturb, public order; or
( c) causing insult to the Indian National Flag or to
any other object of public veneration, whether by mutilating, damaging, burning, defiling, destroying or otherwise, or instigating any person to do so.
Explanation-In this
clause, "object of public
veneration" includes any portrait or statute of an eminent Indian, installed in a public place as a mark of
respect to him or to his memory; or
( d) committing, or instigating any person to commit, any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to
seven years or more or any offence under the Arms Act,
1959 or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, where the
commission of such offence disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order; or
( e) in the case of a person referred to in clause (a)
to (f) of section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, committing any offence punishable with
imprisonment where the commission of such offence
disturbs or is likely to disturb, public order.
"
It will be seen that the Act itself furnishes a dictionary meaning
for the two expressions and a perusal of els. (a) to (e) clearly
shows that any of the matters referred to therein will be both
"pre-judicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of
public order".
We are not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the
petitioner that it is only sub-cl. (1) of cl. (a) of s. 3(2) which
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972 J 1 S.C.11.
deals with the matters, which adversely affect the security of the
A
State.
Injact that very sub-clause refers to the matters mentioned
therein as affecting the security of the State ot the maintenance
·Of public order.
Therefore, in this case the grounds of detention
cannot be held to be vague nor can the order of detention be held
to be invalid on the ground that the petitioner must have been
detained·only to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial
B
to the maintenance of public order and not to the security of the
State. · In particular, under cl. ( d) of s. 2, a person will be considered to be acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the
State or the maintenance of public order, if he commits any offence
under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
The various incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention may also come under
cl. (b) of sub-s. (2) of s. 3 Section 3 of the Explosive Substances
C
Act, 1908, is as follows :
"Sec. 3 : Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion
of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious
injury to property shall, whether any injury to pers011 or
D
property has been actually caused or not, be punished
with transporation for life or any shorter term, to which
fine may be added, or with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, to which fine may be
added."'
The various grounds mentioned in the order of detention
E
dearly brlhg the activities of the petitioner under s.
3 quoted
above.
The date aa\i the place as well as the tinle when the incidents
occurred, and <1lse the train numbers which were affected, as well
as the association of the petitioner with those incidents, have been
fully given in the grounds of detention.
No doubt the names of
F
the pei;sons, who are stated to be his associates have not been
given.
For all the above reasons, we are satisfied that the order
of detention is valid.
In the result, rule nisi is discharged and this writ petition dismissed.
G.C.
Petition dismissed.
G