1974 (11) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Detention Order Under MISA 1971 Quashed Due to Procedural Lapses; Highlights Need for Proper Application of Authority.

Dwarika Prasad Sahu Versus The State of Bihar and Ors.

Dwarika Prasad Sahu Versus The State of Bihar and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order of detention under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.2. Application of mind by the District Magistrate in issuing the detention order.3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966.4. Legitimacy of the grounds for detention, particularly Ground No. 5 and Ground No. 1.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order of Detention:The Supreme Court allowed the petition challenging the validity of the detention order made by the District Magistrate, Ranchi, under Section 3(2)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The Court emphasized that the District Magistrate failed to apply his mind properly and carefully, which led to the infirmity vitiating the order of detention. The Court expressed regret that the attempt to curb economic offenses such as hoarding, black-marketing, and profiteering was frustrated due to the lack of due care and application by the District Magistrate.2. Application of Mind by the District Magistrate:The Court found that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind properly when issuing the detention order. Specifically, the Court noted that the District Magistrate failed to recognize that an order dated 11th July, 1966, issued by the State Government, had dispensed with the requirement of mentioning the names and addresses of customers in cash memos. This oversight indicated a lack of proper application of mind, rendering the order of detention invalid.3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The petitioner, a dealer in high speed diesel oil, was accused of several violations under the Bihar Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966. However, the Court found that Ground No. 5, which alleged that the petitioner supplied 762 litres of diesel oil without mentioning the names and addresses of the purchasers, was based on a misconception. The requirement to mention names and addresses had been waived by the State Government, making this ground unfounded.4. Legitimacy of the Grounds for Detention:- Ground No. 5: The Court found that Ground No. 5 was wholly unfounded and based on a complete misapprehension of the correct situation. The absence of names and addresses in the cash memos did not constitute a contravention of Clause (7) of the license, as this requirement had been waived by the State Government. The Court held that the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, based on this ground, was vitiated, rendering the order of detention invalid.- Ground No. 1: The Court also noted an infirmity in Ground No. 1, which alleged a sale of 1200 litres of diesel oil to one Mr. Griffiths. This allegation was incorrect as the cash memo related only to the sale of 200 litres, and another cash memo for 1000 litres was not mentioned. This error indicated a lack of proper application of mind by the District Magistrate and could have invalidated the detention order.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order of detention, directing that the petitioner be set at liberty forthwith. The Court emphasized the need for District Magistrates to exercise greater care and attention in exercising their vast powers under the Act, both in the interest of personal liberty and effective action against economic offenders.