TMI Blog1968 (5) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sault either by himself or through his relations, agents and associates as set out in the order. On December 19, 1967 the appellant filed a petition in the Court of Orissa challenging the validity of the order of detention on the grounds, inter alia, that the order and the grounds in sup port thereof served upon the appellant were written in the English language which the appellant did not understand. On January 18, 1968, the District Magistrate Cuttack supplied to the appellant an Oriya translation of the order and the grounds. On January 28, 1968, the State of Orissa revoked the order and issued a fresh order that : Whereas the order of detention dated the 15th December, 1967, made by the District Magistrate, Cuttack against Shri Hadibandhu Das son of late Ramchandra Das of Manglabag, town Cuttack has been revoked by the State Government on account of defects of formal nature by their order No. 396C dated the 28th January, 1968. And whereas the State Government are satisfied with respect to the said Hadibandhu Das, that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him. Now, therefore, in exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny, made by the person affected by the order. Section 1 0 _deals with the -procedure of the Advisory Boards, and by S. 1 1 it is provided that in any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the appropriate Government- may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit, and in any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith. Section IIA provides that a person whose detention has been confirmed in pursuance of the detention order shall not be detained, for a period exceeding twelve months. By S. 13 power is conferred upon the State Government and the Central Government to vacate the order of a subordinate officer made under sub-s. (2) of S. 3, and upon the Central Government to revoke the order of a State Government. Sub-section (2) of S. 13 provides : The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances on which the Order of Detention is based. The grounds in support of the order served on the appellant ran into fourteen typed pages and referred to his activities over a period of thirteen years, beside referring to a large number of court proceedings concerning him and other persons who were alleged to be his associates. Mere oral explanation of a complicated order of the nature made against the appellant without supplying him the translation in script and language which he understood would, in our judgment, amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and of being afforded the opportunity of making a representation against the order. The order made by the District Magistrate, Cuttack not having been followed up by service within five days as provided by s' 7(1) of the communication to him of the grounds on which the order was made must be deemed to have become invalid and any subsequent detention of the appellant was unauthorised. On January 28, 1968, the State of Orissa purported to revoke the first order and made a fresh order. The validity of the fresh order dated January 28, 1968, made by the, State of Orissa is challenged on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 45] F.C.R. 81.); Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. The State of Pitnjab ([1952]S.C.R.395.); Shibban Lal Saksena v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and others([1954] S.C.R. 41). In Basanta Chandra Ghose's case(1) an order made under r. 26 of the Defence of India Rules on March 19, 1942. The order was revoked on July 3, 1944, and a fresh order for detention of the detenue was passed on that very date under Ordinance III of 1944. It was urged on behalf of the detenue that the authority was debarred, except on fresh grounds., from passing a fresh order of detention after cancellation of an earlier order, and the High. Court was not justified in presuming that fresh materials must have existed when the order of July 1944 was made. Spens, C.J., rejected the contention. He observed in dealing with that ground It may be that in cases in which it is open to the Court to examine the validity of the grounds of detention a decision that certain alleged grounds did no+. warrant a detention will preclude further detention on the same grounds. But where the earlier order of de- tention is held defective merely on formal (,rounds there is nothing to preclude a proper order of detention being based on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as to make the power more harsh and its operation more stringent. The word revocation is not, in our judgment, capable of a restricted interpretation without any indication by the Parliament of such an intention. Negligence or inaptitude of the detaining authority in making a defective order or in failing to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act may in some cases enure for the benefit of the detenue to which he is not entitled. But it must be remembered that the Act confers power to make a serious invasion upon the liberty of the citizen by the subjective determination of facts by an executive authority, and the Parliament has provided several safeguards against misuse of the power. The very fact that a defective order has been passed, or that it has become invalid because of default in strictly complying with the mandatory provisions of the law bespeaks negligence on the part of the detaining authority, and the principle underlying S. 13(2) is, in our view, the outcome of insistence by the Parliament that the detaining authority shall fully apply its mind to and comply with the requirements of the statute and of insistence upon refusal to countenance slipshod exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
