SASTHI KEOT versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL on 8 February 1974

..

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

SASTHI KEOT

v.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

February·S, 1974

[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S: SARKARIA, JJ.]

Maintenance of ltuernal Security Act, 1971 s. 3(3)-Vagueness of grounds_: Opportunity 11ot afforded for making representation-Effect of.

Pursuant to an order of detention issued under s. 3(1) read withs. 3(2) of the _Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 the petitioner was detained. One of the grounds of detention, which wei$hed with the detaining authority, the Government and the Advisory Board was that the petitioner was a "man of des-perate habits and dangerous character and also prone to committing theft of undergrou.nd cables".

Allowing the petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, HELD: The order of detention_ is in violation of both ArL 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 any~ thing but vague grounds. Apart from the vice of vagueness every desparate or dangerous man cannot be run down under s. 3 of the Act. Moreover, the vitat yet injurious dossier about the petitioner has not been communicated to him and' opportunity afforded for making a proper representation. [314 B] CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1697 of 1973.

Under Art. 32 of the Constitution for. issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.

Sadhu Sinph. for tho petitioner.

/)a/ip Sin11h ami G. S. Chatter;ee, 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 carpus, 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 consi-dered by us in Bhut Nath Mate v. Slate of West Bengal([1]), have beerr urged, and our conclusions thereon are similar to those we hav~ already express:d in the other writ petitions.

It is important to note that in the aflidavit-in-opposition, filed 011 behalf of the respondent we find a statement as under :

"! 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 tele-communication cable."

Ct) Writ Pctitio;N;-1456 or-i91J; judgment delivered on February 8, 1974.

31~

This has been relied upon by the State as additional ground 111 A support of the detention, apart from the theft of cables, recited in the detention order and repeated in tho counter affidavit. Counsd camlidl; admitted that this additional circumstance had been placed bdorn the State Government and the Advisory board, and certainly was before the District Magistrate when he passed the detention order. It i' perfectly plain that the authorities have been influenced by the 1cpon of lhe police that the petitioner was "a man of desperate habits and · 8 uangeruus character and also prone to committing theft of underground cables." We do not regard 'desperate habits' and 'dangerous .:haractcr" aS anything but yague. Apart from the vice of vagueness which perhap~ 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 th...:: MISA. Moreoy,cr, this vital yet injurious dossier about the petitioner has not hecn communicated to him and opportunity afforded for making C a proper representation contra. Therefore there is violation both of art. 22(5) of the Con,titution and of s.3(3) of the Aet. In this vie1L we are constrained to quash the dctcn.tion order on the petitioner and direct his release. ·

P.B.R.

Petition allowed.