SAMARESH CHANDRA BOSE ETC. ETC. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BURDWAN

SAMARESH CHANDRA BOSE ETC. ETC. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BURDWAN

The delay of 22 days in considering the petitioner's representation was satisfactorily explained by the State, given the exceptional circumstances (refugee influx, war, go-slow, increased detention cases). The grounds furnished were not vague or ambiguous and gave adequate opportunity for representation. The acts described constituted clear disturbances of public order, justifying preventive detention. Detention ordered while the detainee was in jail is not per se mala fide or illegal. The challenge to s. 17(a) was not pressed.

Parties
Petitioner: Samaresh Chandra Bose; Petitioner: Shyamal Biswas; Petitioner: Dulal Chandra Das; Respondent: District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 August 1972
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition / Final Judgment After Hearing Under Article 32
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, Preventive Detention, Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, Delay in Consideration of Representation, Validity of Detention While in Jail
Constitutional Law Preventive Detention Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Interpretation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution Delay in Consideration of Representation Validity of Detention While in Jail

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samaresh Chandra Bose

Petitioner

Shyamal Biswas

Petitioner

Dulal Chandra Das

Petitioner

District Magistrate, Burdwan & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition / Final Judgment After Hearing Under Article 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay of 22 days in considering the detenue's representation renders detention invalid
  2. 2 Whether acts alleged constitute breach of public order justifying detention under Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
  3. 3 Whether detention order passed when detenue is already in jail is mala fide or illegal

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of 22 days in considering the petitioner's representation was satisfactorily explained by the State, given the exceptional circumstances (refugee influx, war, go-slow, increased detention cases). The grounds furnished were not vague or ambiguous and gave adequate opportunity for representation. The acts described constituted clear disturbances of public order, justifying preventive detention. Detention ordered while the detainee was in jail is not per se mala fide or illegal. The challenge to s. 17(a) was not pressed.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • All three writ petitions are dismissed.