DATTATREYA MORESHWAR PANGARKAR versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

DATTATREYA MORESHWAR PANGARKAR versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS

Confirmation of detention under section 11(1) of Preventive Detention Act without specifying period does not render the detention illegal; omission to express order in name of Governor under Article 166(1) does not invalidate the executive decision, as provisions are directory, not mandatory.

Parties
Petitioner: Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar; Respondents: The State of Bombay and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 1952
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Hearing Arguments
Outcome
Petitions dismissed (majority); petitioner not entitled to release.
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Executive Orders, Personal Liberty, Detention Procedure, Mode of Expression of Orders
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Executive Orders Personal Liberty Detention Procedure Mode of Expression of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar

Petitioner

The State of Bombay and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment After Hearing Arguments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission to specify the period of further detention in confirmation order under section 11(1) of Preventive Detention Act renders detention illegal
  2. 2 Whether omission to express confirmation order in the name of Governor as required by Article 166(1) of Constitution renders detention illegal

Ratio Decidendi

Confirmation of detention under section 11(1) of Preventive Detention Act without specifying period does not render the detention illegal; omission to express order in name of Governor under Article 166(1) does not invalidate the executive decision, as provisions are directory, not mandatory.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed (majority); petitioner not entitled to release.

Orders

  • Petitioners are not detained illegally; application for habeas corpus dismissed.
  • Dissenting opinion by Mahajan J. directs release, but majority of Court dismisses petitions.