http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SASTHI KEOT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/02/1974

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH

CITATION:  1974 AIR  525            1974 SCR  (3) 313  1974 SCC  (4) 131

ACT: Maintenance    of   Internal   Security   Act,    1971    s. 3(3)--Vagueness  of  grounds--opportunity not  afforded  for making representation--Effect of.

HEADNOTE: Pursuant to an order of detention issued under s. 3(1)  read with  s. 3(2) of the Maintenance of internal  Security  Act, 1971  the petitioner was detained.  One: of the  grounds  of detention,  which weighed with the detaining authority,  the Government  and the Advisory Board was that  the  petitioner was  a "man of desperate habits and dangerous character  and also prone to committing theft of underground cables". Allowing the petition tinder Art. 32 of the Constitution, HELD  : The order of detention is in violation of both  Art. 22(5)  of  the  Constitution  and s. 3(3)  of  the  Act  and therefore  must be quashed.  The grounds "desperate  habits" and "dangerous character" cannot be regarded as anything but vague  grounds.   Apart  from the vice  of  vagueness  every desperate or dangerous man cannot be run down under s. 3  of the  Act.  Moreover, the vital %-et injurious dossier  about the  petitioner  has  not  been  communicated  to  him  and, opportunity  afforded  for making a  proper  representation. [314 B]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1607  of 1973. Under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Sadhu Singh, for the petitioner-- Dalip Singh and G.  S. Chatterjee, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-The petitioner has moved this Court under- art.  32 of the Constitution for the issuance of a  writ  of habeas  corpus,  he being under detention by  order  of  the District  Magistrate,  Burdwan, under sub-s.(1),  read  with sub-s.(2) of S. 3 of MISA (Maintenance of Internal  Security Act, 1971).  Various grounds, similar to those considered by us  in Bhut Nath Mate v. State of West Bengal(1), have  been

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

urged,  and our conclusions thereon are similar to those  we have already expressed in the other writ petitions. It is important to note that in the atlidavit-in-opposition, filed  on  behalf of the respondent we find a  statement  as under "I  further state that it appears from the records that  the detenue  petitioner  is  a  man  of  desperate  habits   and dangerous  character and also prone to committing  theft  of underground telecommunication cable." (1)  Writ  Petition No. 1456 of 1973; judgment delivered  on February 8, 1974. 314 This has been relied upon by the State as additional  ground in  ’Support  of  the detention, apart  from  the  theft  of cables,  recited in the detention order and repeated in  the counter  affidavit.   Counsel candidly ,admitted  that  this additional  circumstance  had been placed before  the  State Government  and  the  Advisory  board,  and  certainly   was before .the District Magistrate when he passed the detention order.  It is perfectly plain that the authorities have been influenced by the report ,of the police that the  petitioner was  "a man of desperate habits and dangerous character  and also prone to committing theft of underground cables." We do not regard ’desperate habits’ and ’dangerous Character’  .as anything but vague.  Apart from the vice of vagueness  which perhaps  may not matter so far as the satisfaction.  of  the authorities  is concerned, every desperate or dangerous  man cannot  be run down under s. 3 of the MISA.  Moreover,  this vital  yet  injurious dossier about the petitioner  has  not been communicated to him and opportunity afforded for making a   proper  representation  contra.   Therefore   there   is violation  both  of art. 22(5) of the  Constitution  and  of s.3(3) of the Act.  In this view we are constrained to quash the detention order on the petitioner and direct his release. P.B.R. Petition allowed. 315