http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SK. IBRAHIM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/12/1973

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1974 AIR  736            1974 SCR  (2) 803  1975 SCC  (3)  13

ACT: Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)- Detention under sec. 3(1) and (2)-Activities prejudicial  to the  maintenance of supplies and services essential  to  the community-Held, on facts that the grounds were not vague and there was no delay in considering the representation.

HEADNOTE: The detention order served on the petitioner stated that  on three different dates he along with his associates was found to  have smuggled rice to the rationing areas of Hoogly  and Howrah  and violently attacked the anti-smuggling party  and disrupted  the  smooth running of the  train  service.   The representation  of  the  detenu 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  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 the disposal 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  submission of the representation  and  its  actual disposal. [804 H] (2)The  mere  fact  that  the  detention  order  is  on  a cyclostyled sheet wherein necessary 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 order had been  made.   The fact  that  the names of the associates of  the  petitioners

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

were not mentioned in the grounds of detention would not  go to show that they suffered from the infirmity of  vagueness. The  Courts  look  with  disfavour  upon  vague  rounds   of detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the  precise  activity  on  account of  which  he  is  being detained   so  as  to  enable  him  to  make  an   effective representation. [806C]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1973. Under  Art  32 of the Constitution of India for issue  of  a Writ in the nature of habeas corpus. S. C. Majumdar and A. Madan, for the petitioner. Sukumar Ghosh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA.   J-  The District Magistrate of Hooghly  passed  an order  on May 9, 1973 under sub-section (1) read  with  sub- section  (2)  of section 3 of the  Maintenance  of  Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 804 No,  26 of 1971) for the detention of the petitioner with  a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the  maintenance of supplies and services essential  to--the community.   In  pursuance  of  the,  detention  order,  the petitioner was arrested on May 14, 1973 and was served  with the  order  of detention as also the grounds  of  ’detention together with vernacular translation thereof.  Report  about the  making of the detention order was sent by the  District Magistrate to the, State Government and the said  Government approved  the detention order on May 18, 1973.  The case  of the  petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board by  the State  Government  on June 5, 1973.  The petitioner  sent  a representation  against  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 July 30. 1973 the State Government confirmed the order for the detention 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 heard 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 Constitution was thereafter sent by the petitioner from jail on July 23, 1973 for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The  petition has been resisted by the State of West  Bengal and  the  affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen,  Deputy  Secretary, Home  (Special) 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  assailed  the detention of the petitioner 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  the representation of the petitioner  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 State  Government

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

in  its  Home Department on June 2, 1973 after it  had  been forwarded  by  the Superintendent, Hooghly Jail.   The  said representation  was then considered and was rejected by  the State  Government  on  June  4. 1973.   It  cannot,  in  our opinion, be said that there was any delay in the disposal of the   representation   of  the  petitioner  by   the   State Government.   It has been urged that the representation  wag sent  by him from jail on May 25, 1973 and that a period  of 10  days  elapsed  from the date of the  submission  of  the representation  and its actual disposal.  The  above  period cannot  also  be said to be so inordinately  long  as  might affect the validity of the detention. 805 It has next been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the detention  order  contained  blanks  which  were  filled  in subsequent  to  the 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  allegation.   The   petitioner   was admittedly  not present at the time the detention order  was signed by the District Magistrate and. as such, he cannot be in a position to state whether the detention order contained blanks  when it was signed by the District Magistrate.   The mere fact that the detention order is on a cyclostyled sheet wherein  necessary particulars were filled in ink would  not go  to show that the particulars in ink were filled in  sub- sequent to the signing of the detention order. Lastly, it has been argued by Mr. Majumdar that the  grounds of  detention  on  the  basis of which  the  order  for  the detention  was made were vague.  In this connection we  find that the grounds of detention were as under               "On 31-3-73 in the early hours of the  morning               you and your associates were found to  smuggle               rice     by    train    No.    of    2     Dn.               (Tarakeshwar--Sheofaphuli  local)  from   non-               rationed  areas to rationing areas of  Hooghly               and  Howrah District in contravention  of  the               provisions  of the West Bengal Rice and  Paddy               (Restriction  on  Movement) Order,  1968.   At               04.27  hrs.  of date when  the  train  reached               Kamarkundu Railway Station the  anti-smuggling               staff  of  Dankuni  P.S.checkpost  under   the               command of S.I. Biren Das, seized 14  quintals               and 55 kgs. of smuggled rice belonging to  you               and  your associates after rummaging the  said               train.   At  this  you  and  your   associates               launched   a  violent  attack  on  the   anti-               smuggling  party  and threw  ballasts  towards               them  causing injuries an the persons of  some               of  the  anti-smuggling staff with a  view  to               scare  them away and thus attempted to  escape               with  the smuggled rice.   The  anti-smuggling               party  had  to open fire in  self-defence  and               could be able to arrest two of your associates               on  chase when you and your  other  associates               managed to escape.  As a result of this. there               was  serious disruption in the smooth  running               of  train services on Tarakeshwar-Howrah  line               causing inconvenience to the travelling public               and transshipment of commodities essential- to               the community. The said activity of yours thus               attract    section   3(1)(a)(iii)    of    the               Maintenance  of  Internal Security  Act,  1971               (Act No. 26 of 1971).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             2.On  12-4-73 at 11-21 hrs. you  and  your               associates were found to board train No. 4 Dn.               (Bombay-Howrah  Mail)  with huge  quantity  of               rice   with  a  view  to  smuggle  them   from               nonrational areas to the industrial belts of               806               Howrah  in contravention of the provisions  of               the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Restriction on               Movement)  Order, 1908 when the train  stopped               at Jaugram Railway Station  on  Burdwan-Howrah               Chord line due to alarm chain pulling by  some               of  your associates as per  previous  arrange-               ments,  S. P. N. O. Dey of G.R.P.  Enforcement               Branch,   Howrah  with  his  staff  who   were               travelling by the said train could be able  to               stop the train at Chandanpore Railway  Station               with  the help of the Guard of the train.   On               seeing the S.I. and his Party, you jumped down               from  the  train  and  fled  away  from  there               leaving  behind  the  bags  of  smuggled  rice               weighing  5 quintals.  The S.I. and his  staff               could also be able to seize 41 quintals and 75               kgs.  of smuggled rice from the possession  of               your  other  associates who  also  managed  to               escape with you.  The total value of the smug-               gled  rice seized was about Rs. 10,000/-.   By               your such act you tried to frustrate the  food               policy of the Government in respect of  supply               and  distribution of essential commodities  to               the  community.   The said activity  of  yours               thus  attract  section  5(1)(a)(iii)  of   the               Maintenance  of  Internal Security  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.               Cordoning  saw You 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 Paddy  (Restriction  on               Movement)  Order,  1968.   The  anti-smuggling               staff  under  the command of S.I., J.  C.  Das               arrested You from the 3rd class compartment of               the said train with two gunny bags  containing               169  kgs.  of rice which  ’you  were  carrying               without any permit or authority, By your  such               act you tried to frustrate the food policy  of               the  Government  in  respect  of  supply   and               distribution  of essential commodities to  the               community.   The said activity of  yours  thus               attract  section  3(1)(a)(iii)  of  the  Main-               tenance of.  Internal Security Act, 1971  (Act               26 of 1971)." It  would  appear from the, above that 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   order   bad  been  made.   It  cannot   in   the circumstances  be  said that the Petitioner was in  any  way handicapped in making an effective representation- The  fact that the names of the associates of the Petitioner were  not mentioned  in the grounds of detention would not go to  show

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

that  they suffered from the infirmity of  vagueness.   The, courts look with disfavour upon vague grounds of 807 detention, because such grounds fail to convey to the detenu the  precise  activity  on  account of  which  he  is  being detained.   The  detenu  is thus prevented  from  making  an effective  representation  which he   night  possible  have, made, if he had been apprised of the objection able 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  and  he  is not shown to  have  been  prejudiced  or handicapped  in  making  in  effective  representation,  the argument  about the vagueness of grounds of  detention  must plainly be held to be not tenable. The petition consequently fails and is dismissed. S.B.W. Petition dismissed. 808