Skip to content


EsharuddIn @ Esharu Md. Vs. the District Magistrate, West Dinajpur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 357 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1164; 1975CriLJ938; (1975)3SCC553; 1975(7)LC99(SC)
AppellantEsharuddIn @ Esharu Md.
RespondentThe District Magistrate, West Dinajpur and ors.
Appellant Advocate D. Goburdhan, Amicus Curia
Respondent Advocate D.N. Mukherjee and ; G.S. Chatterjee, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....the assessable value is to deduct the permissible deductions and thereafter to compute the excise on an ad valorem basis by applying the tariff rate to the assessable value. [865d] - 2. the only ground urged by counsel for the petitioner was that the representation of the detenu was not forwarded to the advisory board or considered by it and, therefore, the detention of the petitioner was bad. we have had the benefit of seeing the re port of the advisory board and we are satisfied that the representation of the detenu was before the advisory board and that it was considered by the board before making its report......on 5-7-1973. that was rejected by the government. the representation was thereafter sent to the advisory board. the advisory board reported that there was sufficient cause for detention and the state government confirmed the order of detention. 2. the only ground urged by counsel for the petitioner was that the representation of the detenu was not forwarded to the advisory board or considered by it and, therefore, the detention of the petitioner was bad. 3. we do not think there is any merit in this contention. although, in the affidavit in opposition, it was not stated that the representation of the detenu was sent to the advisory board, it is clear that the representation was actually considered by the board. we have had the benefit of seeing the re port of the advisory board and we.....
Judgment:

K.K. Mathew, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention passed on 7-6-1973 under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. In pursuance to the order, the petitioner was detained on 18-6-1973. The grounds of detention communicated to the detunu stated that he along with others committed dacoity on 1-3-1973 and 6-3-1973, that it had created panic among the villagers and that if he was let at large he would be a menace to public order. He filed a representation on 5-7-1973. That was rejected by the Government. The representation was thereafter sent to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board reported that there was sufficient cause for detention and the State Government confirmed the order of detention.

2. The only ground urged by counsel for the petitioner was that the representation of the detenu was not forwarded to the Advisory Board or considered by it and, therefore, the detention of the petitioner was bad.

3. We do not think there is any merit in this contention. Although, in the affidavit in opposition, it was not stated that the representation of the detenu was sent to the Advisory Board, it is clear that the representation was actually considered by the Board. We have had the benefit of seeing the re port of the Advisory Board and we are satisfied that the representation of the detenu was before the Advisory Board and that it was considered by the Board before making its report.

4. We dismiss the petition.


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