SITALA PRASAD SHAW versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

SITALA PRASAD SHAW versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

The use of 'you have been acting' does not infer reliance on undisclosed material since particulars refer only to a single incident; typographical errors in approval date are immaterial when order is confirmed with correct date and number.

Parties
Petitioner: Sitala Prasad Shaw; Respondent: State of West Bengal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 October 1974
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Disposition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Preventive Detention, Maintenance of Internal Security Act, Habeas Corpus, Article 22(5)
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Preventive Detention Maintenance of Internal Security Act Habeas Corpus Article 22(5)

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sitala Prasad Shaw

Petitioner

State of West Bengal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of 'you have been acting' in grounds of detention based on a solitary incident justifies inference that detention order is founded on undisclosed material
  2. 2 Whether approval of detention by State Government with different order date constitutes approval of another detention order

Ratio Decidendi

The use of 'you have been acting' does not infer reliance on undisclosed material since particulars refer only to a single incident; typographical errors in approval date are immaterial when order is confirmed with correct date and number.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • Order of detention confirmed
  • Rule discharged