Skip to content


Samar Ali Miyan Vs. the State of West Bengal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. No. 307 of 1974
Judge
Reported inAIR1975SC1631; 1975(7)LC165(SC)
ActsMaintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 - Sections 3(2)(1)
AppellantSamar Ali Miyan
RespondentThe State of West Bengal
Excerpt:
- [ k.k. mathew and; p.n. bhagwati, jj.] - maintenance of internal security act, 1971 - sections 3(2)(1) -- the petitioner challenges an order of detention dated 8th december, 1973 made by the district magistrate, darjeeling under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the maintenance of internal security act, 1971. petition dismissed. - it was held that as per the affidavit in reply of the district magistrate, all formalities as required were duly complied with and the grounds of detention were clearly and specifically supplied to the petitioner......conceded that the order of detention did not appear to suffer from any vice and it was not possible for him to point out any defect in the order of detention. the affidavit in reply filed by the district magistrate showed that the formalities required by the provisions of the act had been complied with within the prescribed time limits and the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner were clear and specific and contained the most detailed, particulars in regard to the two incidents there set out and they had clear nexus with the object of detention, namely, maintenance of public order.2. we, therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge the rule.petition dismissed.
Judgment:

BHAGWATI, J.

1. The petitioner challenges an order of detention dated 8th December, 1973 made by the District Magistrate, Darjeeling under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. We asked Mr. D. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner amicus curiae as to what were the grounds on which the order of detention was being challenged but he was unable to formulate any grounds. He frankly, and in our opinion rightly, conceded that the order of detention did not appear to suffer from any vice and it was not possible for him to point out any defect in the order of detention. The affidavit in reply filed by the District Magistrate showed that the formalities required by the provisions of the Act had been complied with within the prescribed time limits and the grounds of detention supplied to the petitioner were clear and specific and contained the most detailed, particulars in regard to the two incidents there set out and they had clear nexus with the object of detention, namely, maintenance of public order.

2. We, therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge the rule.

Petition dismissed.


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