http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: AJIT KUMAR KAVIRAJ

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DISTT.  MAGISTRATE, BIRBHUM AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/09/1974

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1917            1975 SCR  (2)  21  1975 SCC  (3) 264

ACT: Preventive  Detention-Duty  of detaining authority  to  give unambiguous  grounds  to  detenu-Procedural  safeguards   of liberty-Duty to observe.

HEADNOTE: The petitioner was detained under s. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal  Security Act, 1971.  ’The grounds communicated  to him were, (1) that on 28-1-1973 at about 4.30 p.m., he. as a direct  purchasing  agent of the Food Corporation  of  India sold  out  4 quintals of paddy from the stock  held  in  the account  of the Food Corporation of India to  three  persons and  by  such clandestine deal hindered the  procurement  of paddy  and  thereby  acted in a manner  prejudicial  to  the maintenance  of  supplies  and  services  essential  to  the community; and (2) that on the same day at about 10.30  p.m. a  stock  of  about 12 quintals of paddy was  found  in  his godown and that he failed to justify the possession and that by such surreptitious business as a direct purchasing  agent he impeded the progress of procurement of ’paddy and thereby acted  in a manner resupplies and services essential to  the community. In a petition under Art. 32, challenging the detention, HELD  :  (1) There was clear violation of Art. 22(5)  as  no adequate opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner  to make a proper representation, because, the grounds are vague and  uncertain  and it is not reasonably  possible  for  the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention. [22F-G] With  reference to the first ground it is not clear  whether the  three persons mentioned in the ground  were  authorised purchasers or not.  The ground described the transaction  as a clandestine deal, but it is not shown how the  transaction can be so described without any particulars to justify  such an  observation.   Similarly, no  definite  particulars  are disclosed  even to prima facie justify the observation  that the  finding  of paddy in his possession  was  surreptitious business. [23C-E] (2)  The  petitioner submitted a long representation to  the Government.   But it could not be said that on that  account that  he  fully  understood the import  of  the  allegations mentioned  in  the grounds.  The validity  of  the  impugned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

order  cannot be decided in the light of the  representation made   by   the  petitioner.   He  might  have   given   the representation  because an F.I.R. was filed against him  for prosecuting him under s. 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,  referring  to the second ground of detention  and  he might  have  come to know the details in the course  of  the prosecution.   In  a  case of  preventive  detention  it  is absolutely necessary to communicate the grounds of detention to  the  detenu  in clear and ambiguous  terms  giving  such particulars  as  will  facilitate  making  of  an  effective representation   that  the  order  is  unfounded.    It   is exceedingly  important,  in the interest of liberty  of  the citizen  that the minimum requirements of law  are  strictly comPlied  with and the detaining authority applies its  mind in  a  proper  manner  at the time  of  passing  the  order. [22G.23C, F] (3)  The order of the High Court dismissing the petition  of the petitioner under s. 491, Criminal Procedure Code,  1898, would  not operate at res Judicata in an application  before this Court under Art. 32.. [23G]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1880 of 1973. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. H.   C. Mittar, for the petitioner. 22 P.   K.  Chatterjee, G. S. Chatterjee and Sukumar Basu,  for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.-By  this application under Article  32  of  the Constitution  for  a writ of habeas  corpus  the  petitioner challenges the validity of the order of detention passed  by the  District Magistrate, Birbhum, on March 21, 1973,  under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act,  1971 (Act  No. 26 of 1971).  The order of detention is passed  on the  ground that the petitioner has been acting in a  manner prejudicial  to  the maintenance of  supplies  and  services essential   to  the  community.   The  impugned   order   is specifically  founded  on two grounds  communicated  to  the petitioner.  These are as follows:-               (1)   "On 28-1-73 at about 4.30 P.M. you as  a               Direct   Purchasing   Agent   of   the    Food               Corporation  of India sold out 4  quintals  of               paddy  from the stock held in the  account  of               the F.C.I. to Sk.  Subhan, Sk.  Rakib and  Sk.               Ambur of Sahapur, P. S. Khoyrasole and by such               clandestine  deal  in paddy you  hindered  the               procurement  of paddy and thereby acted  in  a               manner  prejudicial  to  the  maintenance   of               supplies   and  services  essential   to   the               community".               "On 28-1-73 at about 10.30 P.M. a stock of  12               qunt, 15 kg. of paddy was found in your godown               but  you failed to show any record or  account               book to justify the stock in your godown.   By               such   surreptitious  business  as  a   Direct               Purchasing  Agent you impeded the progress  of               procurement of paddy by the F.C.I. and thereby               acted   in   a  manner  prejudicial   to   the               maintenance of supplies and services essential               to the community. Mr.  H.  C.  Mittal,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner appearing as amicus curiae, has made several submissions but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

it  is sufficient to confine our decision to  one  principal ground, namely, that the grounds are so vague and  uncertain that it is not reasonably possible for the detenu to make an effective  representation  against the order  of  detention. Mr.  Chatterjee,  appearing on behalf of the State  of  West Bengal,  seeks to support the order on the ground  that  the detenu  fully  understood  the  import  of  the  allegations mentioned  in the grounds of detention and submitted a  long representation   to  the  Government  which  was,   however, rejected.   It is well settled that in a case of  preventive detention  under  the  Act it  is  absolutely  necessary  to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu in  clear and  unambiguous  terms giving as much particulars  as  will facilitate making of an effective representation in order to satisfy the detaining authority that the order is  unfounded or invalid. Before  we proceed further we may note that  the  petitioner was  arrested  by the police on January 28,  1973,  and  was produced before 23 the Magistrate for prosecution under section 7 (1) (a)  (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Act No. X of 1955 for violation  of  condition  of West  Bengal  Rice,  and  Paddy Movement  Order 1968.  The first information report of  that case  being Khoyrasole P. S. No. 10 dated January 29,  1973, discloses  that  the petitioner "indulged in  selling  Govt. paddy  from the D.P. Agent godown at a higher rate than  the scheduled".   It  also refers therein to the  second  ground mentioned  in the grounds of detention.  It  is,  therefore, not  surprising that the petitioner would have made  a  long representation  to  the Government against  his  arrest  and seizure  of  paddy  and all  other  allegations  which  were certainly  known to him in the course of the Court  prosecu- tion.   We  are,  therefore, not prepared to  put  the  cart before  the horse in order to determine the validity of  the impugned  order in the light of the representation  made  by the petitioner in this case. We  have carefully pursued the grounds of detention and  are constrained  to  hold  that these are  vague  and  uncertain grounds which did not enable the detenu to make an effective representation  against  the order.  With reference  to  the first  ground  it  is not at all  clear  whether  the  three persons mentioned in the ground who purchased 4 quintals  of paddy  were authorised purchasers or not.  The first  ground describes the transaction as a "clandestine deal"; but it is not  ’at all clear how the transaction can be  so  described without   any  particulars  to  justify   the   observation. Similarly how the finding of 12 quintals and 15 kilograms of paddy can be described as a "surreptitious business" without disclosing  any  definite particulars to  even  prima  facie justify such an observation.  We are, therefore, clearly  of opinion  that  in this case the petitioner did  not  have  a reasonable  opportunity to make an effective  representation against   the  impugned  order  of  detention.   There   is, therefore,   clear  violation  of  Article  22(5)   of   the Constitution  of India as no adequate opportunity  has  been afforded to the petitioner to make a proper  representation. In  a  case  of  preventive  detention  it  is   exceedingly important in the interest of liberty of the citizen that the minimum requirements of law which are laid down are strictly complied  with and the detaining authority applies its  mind in a proper manner at the time of passing the order. It  is also submitted by the learned counsel for, the  State of West Bengal that the Division Bench of the Calcutta  High Court  had rejected the petitioner’s application for a  writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of habeas corpus under section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. It  is, however, well known that such an order of  the  High Court  does  not operate as res judicata in  an  application before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. In  the, result the petition is allowed.  The rule  is  made absolute.   The petitioner shall be released from  detention forthwith. V.P.S. Petition allowed. 24