# SK. IBRAHIM v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1974] 2 S.C.R. 803
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973
- **Bench:** H. R. Khanna, M .. H. Beg
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sk-ibrahim-v-state-of-west-bengal-and-ors-6191
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Maintenance of Jnternal Security Act, 1911 (Act 26 of 1911)-D•tentlon
under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to the niaintenance of supplies
and services essential to ·the co1nmunily-:Held, on facts that the grou,uls were
not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation.
The detention order served on the petitioner stated that. on three different
dates be along with his associates was found to have smuggled rice to the rationing
areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently atlacked the anti-smuggling party and
disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The representation of the deteau
was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government
rejected the representation on Jllne 4, 1973 and forwarded the samQ to the Advi~
•ory Board. The Advisory Board by their report dated July 11, 1973, held that
there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
On July 30, 1973,
the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The detention was inter
alia challenged on the ground of delay and vagueness of grounds.
Dismissing the writ petition,·
HELD: (1) The State Government received the representation on June 2, 1973
and rejected the same on June 4, 1973. There was no delay in tho dispasal of the
representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay
although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of aubmissioa
of the representation and its actual disposal.
[804 H]
(2) The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein
ncce.uary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars
in ink were filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order. There ·
was no evidence to prove the allegation.
[805 C]
(3) The date, time and place of each of the incidents were specified in the·
grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the
petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise
the petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the detention orderbad
been made. Th.e fact that the.names of the associates of the petitionea were not
mentioned in the &rounds of detention would not ao to show that they suffered
from the infirmity of vagueness. The Coqrts look with disfavour upon vague
grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the
pre<.:ise •ctivi~y on account of which he is being detained 150 as to enable him
to make an Cffective representation. [806C]
'
O!UG!NAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in
the nature of habetp corpus. · __..
S. C: Maiumdar and A. Madan, ior the petitioner.
Sukwnar Ghosh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by·
KHANNA, J. The District .Ma£istrate of Hooghly pa,sed an order.
on May 9. 1973 under sub-section (1) .read with. sub-section (2)'C
of section 3 of the Maintenance of Intern'al Securiiy Act, 1971 (Aclt:
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.B.
No. 26 of 1971 \ for the dete11tion of the petitioner with a view to
prevent him from acting i_n any m~nner prejukiicial ~ the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commumty. In pursuance of the detentfon onler, the petitioner was arrested on May 14,
1973 antl was served with the order of detention as also the grounds
:if lletention together with vernacular translation thereof.
Report
abo~t the. making of ·the· detention oirder was sent by the District
Magistrate to the State Gover'nment and the said Govermnent approved the detention ord;_r on May 18, 1973. The case C>f the
petitioner was placed before the Advisory Boa.II by the State Government on June 5, 1973. !he petitioner
sent a representation
a~ainst his detention and the same was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973.
The State Government rejeCted the representation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory
Board.
The Advisory

## Text

\
.•
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
803
SK. IBRAHIM
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
December 19, 1973
[H. R. KHANNA AND M .. H. BEG, JJ.]
Maintenance of Jnternal Security Act, 1911 (Act 26 of 1911)-D•tentlon
under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial to the niaintenance of supplies
and services essential to ·the co1nmunily-:Held, on facts that the grou,uls were
not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation.
The detention order served on the petitioner stated that. on three different
dates be along with his associates was found to have smuggled rice to the rationing
areas of Hoogly and Howrah and violently atlacked the anti-smuggling party and
disrupted the smooth running of the train service. The representation of the deteau
was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973. The State Government
rejected the representation on Jllne 4, 1973 and forwarded the samQ to the Advi~
•ory Board. The Advisory Board by their report dated July 11, 1973, held that
there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
On July 30, 1973,
the State Government confirmed the order of detention. The detention was inter
alia challenged on the ground of delay and vagueness of grounds.
Dismissing the writ petition,·
HELD: (1) The State Government received the representation on June 2, 1973
and rejected the same on June 4, 1973. There was no delay in tho dispasal of the
representation by the State Government. There was also no inordinate delay
although a period of more than ten days had elapsed from the date of aubmissioa
of the representation and its actual disposal.
[804 H]
(2) The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein
ncce.uary particulars were filled in ink would not go to show that the particulars
in ink were filled subsequent to the signing of the detention order. There ·
was no evidence to prove the allegation.
[805 C]
(3) The date, time and place of each of the incidents were specified in the·
grounds. Particulars were also given regarding the nature of the activities of the
petitioner. The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise
the petitioner of the precise activities on account of which the detention orderbad
been made. Th.e fact that the.names of the associates of the petitionea were not
mentioned in the &rounds of detention would not ao to show that they suffered
from the infirmity of vagueness. The Coqrts look with disfavour upon vague
grounds of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the
pre<.:ise •ctivi~y on account of which he is being detained 150 as to enable him
to make an Cffective representation. [806C]
'
O!UG!NAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973.
Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for issue of a Writ in
the nature of habetp corpus. · __..
S. C: Maiumdar and A. Madan, ior the petitioner.
Sukwnar Ghosh, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Col!rt was delivered by·
KHANNA, J. The District .Ma£istrate of Hooghly pa,sed an order.
on May 9. 1973 under sub-section (1) .read with. sub-section (2)'C
of section 3 of the Maintenance of Intern'al Securiiy Act, 1971 (Aclt:
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.B.
No. 26 of 1971 \ for the dete11tion of the petitioner with a view to
prevent him from acting i_n any m~nner prejukiicial ~ the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the commumty. In pursuance of the detentfon onler, the petitioner was arrested on May 14,
1973 antl was served with the order of detention as also the grounds
:if lletention together with vernacular translation thereof.
Report
abo~t the. making of ·the· detention oirder was sent by the District
Magistrate to the State Gover'nment and the said Govermnent approved the detention ord;_r on May 18, 1973. The case C>f the
petitioner was placed before the Advisory Boa.II by the State Government on June 5, 1973. !he petitioner
sent a representation
a~ainst his detention and the same was received by the State Government on June 2. 1973.
The State Government rejeCted the representation on June 4, 1973 and forwarded the same to the Advisory
Board.
The Advisory Board after considering
the representation
and hearing the petitioner in person made report to the State Government on. July 11,
1973.
Opinion was expressed by the Board
that there was suffiCient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
On Julv 30. 1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the
de\cntion of the petitioner.
The petitioner in the meantime filed petition under section 491
of the Code ·of Criminal Procedure before the Calcutta High Court.
The said petition was hearll by a Division Bench of the High Court
and was dismissed as per judgment dated July 4, 1973. The present petition under article 32 of the Constituton was thereafter sent
bv the petitioner from jail on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ
Qf hdbeas corpus.
·
The petition has been resisted by the State of West Bengal and
the affidavit of Shri Sukumar S!on, Deputy Secretary, Home (Sp,cial)
Department has been filed in opposition to the petition. Arguments
have been addressed before us by Mr. S. C. Majumdar amicus curiae
and Mr. Sukumar Ghosh for the State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar has assailel:I the detention of the potitioner on three grounds.
It has been argued in the first instance by Mr. Majumdar that
there was delay on the part of the State· Government in considering
th~ representation of the petitioiner and such delay vitiates the detention.
This contention. in our opinion, is without any force.
It
would appear from the affidavit filed by Shri Sukumar Sen that the
representation sent by the petitioner was received by the Stato Government in its Home Department on June 2. 1973 after it had been
forwarded by the Superintendent, Hooghly Jail.
The said representation was then considered anl! was rejected by the State Government
on June 4. 1973. It cannot, in our ooim\m, be said that there was
any delav in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner by
the State Government.
It has been ureed that the representatiOn
was sent by him from jail on Mav 25, 1973 and that a period of 10
davs elaosed froni the date oi the submission of the representation
and its actual disposal. ·The above period cannot also be ·said to
be so inord;natelv long as might affect the validity of .the detention.
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
.B
c
D
F
G
H
IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Khanna, !.)
805
It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the . detention order ccpltain<!I blank~ which were filled in subsequent to
th~ signing of that order by the District Magistrate.
This. allegation
has been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government and, in our opinion, there is no cogent ground to accept the
correctness of the alle11.ation.
The
petitiQner was admittedly not
presem at the time the detentio11 order was signed by the District
MaJ!istrate and. as such. he cannot be in a position to state whether
the detention order contauied blanks when it was. signed by the District Magistrate.
The mere fact that the detention order is on a
cyclostyled: sheet wherein neC\lssary particulars were filled in
ink
would not 11.0 to show that the particulars in ink were filled in sub-
. sequent to the signing of the detention order.
Lastly, it has been ar11.ued by Mr. Maiumdar that the grounds
of detention on the basis of which the order for the detention was
made were va11.μe.
In this connection WC· firtl that the grounds of
detention were as under :
"On 31-3-73 in the ~arly hours of the
morning you
and your. associates were found to smul1.Jlle rice by train
No. of 2
Dn. ITarakeiltwar-Sheoraphuli
local)
from
non-ratiOllled areas to rationing
areas
of Hooghly and
Howrah District in contraventiqn of the provisions of the
West Ben11.3l Rice and Palldy !Restriction on Movement)
Order, 1968.
At 04.27 hrs.' of tlate when the train reached Kamarkundu Railway Station the anti-smuggling staff
of Dankuni P.S. che<;kPO&t under
the command of SJ .
. Biren Das. seized 14 auini8Js and 55 kgS. of smuggled rice
belonll.inj!; to You and your associates after rummal!ing the
said train.
At this you -and your associates launched a
violent attack on the
anti-smu11.11.ling · party · and
threw
ballasts towards them causin2 injuries on the persons of
some of the anti-smu~ng staff with a view to scare them
awav and thus attempted tQ escaPe with the. smuggled rice.
The ·anti·smu2clin2 party had to open fire in self-defence
and could be able to arrest two of your associates on chase
when vou and vour other associates mana2ed to escape. As
a result of. this. there w.S ·senous disruption in t)le ~ooth
running of train lierVices
on
Tarake~war:ltowrah line
causinj!; inconvenience to the travelling·public and tranship·
ment of commodities essential to the community. The said
activity of vours thus attract section 3 ( 1 )(a)( iii) of the
Maintenance of Tnternal Secqriiv Act,
1971 (Act No. 26
of. 1971).
2; On 12-4!-73 at 11-21 hrs. you and your associates
were found to hoard train No. 4' Dn.
(Bombay-Howrah
Mail) . with hu2e auantitv of rice with a view . to smuggle
thet11 from non -rationed areas
to the industrial
belts of
806
SUPREM.E COURT REPORTS
[1974] 2 S.C.R.
Howrah in contravention of the provisions of the West
Bengal ruce and Poody (Restriction on Movement) Order,
1%8 when the train stOl!{JCd at Jaugram Railway Stauon
on Burdwan-Howrab Chord line due to alarm chain pulling bv some of your associates
as per previous arrangements, s. P. N. 0. Dey of G.R.P.. Enforcement Branch,
Howrah with his staff who were travelling by the said train
could be' able to slop th~ train at Chandanpore Railway
Station with the help of the Guard of the train. On seeing
the S.I. and his party, vou-\Um.ped down from the train and
fled away from there leaving behind the bags of smuggled
rice weighing 5 quintals. The S.l. and his staff could also
be able to seize 41 quintals and 75 kgs. of smuggled rice
from the possession of your O.ther
associates wbo also
managed to escape with you.
The total value oi the smuggled rice seized was.about Rs. 10,000/-, By your such act
you tried to frustrate the food policy of the Government in
respect of supplv and distribution of essential commodities
to the community.
The said activitv of vours thus attract
section S(l)(a)(iii) c: the Maintenance of Internal Secllrity Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971).
3. On 23-4-73 at 12-20 hrs. when train No. C-258
Down (Burdwan-Howrah Chord line local>
arrived
at
Kamarkundu Railway Station, the anti-smuggling party of
Howrah G.R.P.
Cordonin,ll saw vou in a 3rd class compartment of the said train with the bags of smuggled rice
in contravention of the provisions of. the West Bengal Rice
and
Pakidy
(Restriction on
Movement) Order,
196~.
The anti-smuggling staff under the command of S.I., J. C.
Das arrested vou from the 3rd class compartment of the
said train with two ~y
·bags containing 169 kgs. of rice
which vou were carrving without any permit or authority,
By vour such act vou tried to frustrate
the food policy
of the Government in respect of supplv and distribution of
essential commollities to the community.
The said activity of yours thus attract section 3(1)(a){iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,
1971
(Act 26
O[
1971)."
It wo~d appear from the above that the date, time and place of
each of the incidents were sPCCified in the l!l'OUDds. Particulars were
also liven rCl!ardin2 the nature of the activities
of the petitioner.
The facts stated in the grounds of detention were sufficient to apprise
lhe petitioner of the orecise activities on account of which the detention order had been made.
It cannot in the circumstances be
said that the petitioner was in anv way handicapped in makillll an
effective rel)fCSentation.
The fact that the names of the associates
of the petitioner were not mentioned in the grounds of detention
woultl not e:o to show that they suffered from
the
infirmitv of
vagueness.
The courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
IBRAHIM v. WEST BENGAL (Kha1111a, J.)
807
'
detention, bec~use such grounds fail , to convey to the detenu the
precise activitv on account of which he is being detained. The detenu
is thus prevented from making an effective representation which he
might possible have made, if he had been apprised of the objectionable activity which led to his detention.
Where, however, as in
the present case the requisite details of the activity for which the
order for detention was made.. have been conveyed to the detenu
at1d he is not shown to have been prejudiced or handicapped
in
making an effective representation, the argument about the vague,.
ness of grounds of detention must plainly be held to be not tenable.
The petition consequently fails and is dismissed.
S.B.W.
Petition dismisJed.