Skip to content


Gopinath Pramanik Vs. the District Magistrate, Nadia and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 556 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1406; 1975CriLJ1238; (1975)2SCC1; 1975(7)LC452(SC)
ActsPublic Order
AppellantGopinath Pramanik
RespondentThe District Magistrate, Nadia and ors.
Excerpt:
.....of madras, [1953] s.c.r. 677 and the state of bombay v. r.m.d. chamarbaugwala, [1957] s.c.r. 874, relied on. bengal immunity co. ltd. v. the state of bihar, [1955] 2 s.c.r. 603, considered. case law reviewed. as in a sale of goods, the goods must necessarily play an important part, the circumstances mentioned in the proviso to s. 2(g) of the act, namely, the presence of the goods in bihar at the date of the agreement of sale or their production or manufacture there must be held to constitute a sufficient nexus between the taxing province and the sale wherever that might take place. governor general v. raleigh investment, [1944] f.c.r. 229, relied on. province of madras v. boddu paidanna and sons, [1942] f.c.r. go, distinguished. it would not be correct to contend that the theory of..........magistrate is based on activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order while the grounds relied on have relevance only to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. we have examined the case and find that the grounds relied on by the district magistrate are germane to disruption of maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and have nothing to do whatsoever with the maintenance of public order.2. the detenu in his application has specifically stated that the grounds of detention have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. in answer, the counter-affidavit filed by the state does not specifically deny this infirmity. it follows that the detention is unsustainable on this simple ground of non-denial of non-nexus.....
Judgment:

V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.

1. The petitioner detenu has moved this petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention on the ground, inter alia, that the order of the District Magistrate is based on activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order while the grounds relied on have relevance only to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. We have examined the case and find that the grounds relied on by the District Magistrate are germane to disruption of maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and have nothing to do whatsoever with the maintenance of public order.

2. The detenu in his application has specifically stated that the grounds of detention have no nexus with the maintenance of public order. In answer, the counter-affidavit filed by the state does not specifically deny this infirmity. It follows that the detention is unsustainable on this simple ground of non-denial of non-nexus between the grounds and the order without probing further into the matter. We therefore direct release of the detenu.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //