TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (7) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me trouble with the place of Burrabazar, P.S. in Calcutta, particularly with the Sub-Inspector Kalyan Dutt, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station. The appellant also said that he incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Customs Department who had illegally seized the goods of the appellant and also prevented him from participating at the auction-sales of Customs Department. The appellant had made a complaint to the higher authorities of the Customs Department in this respect. On September 27, 1965 the order of detention of the appellant was made by the Government of West Bengal under r. 30 of the Defence of India Rules and in pursuance of that order the appellant was detained in the Presidency jail at Calcutta. The order of detention being No. 7422 H.S. of the Government of West Bengal Home Department Special Section reads as follows: "Whereas the Governor is satisfied that with a view to preventing Sri Jaichand Lal Sethia, son of Sri Dipchand Sethia of 9 Decrees Land, Calcutta from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, it is necessary to make an order directing that he be detained. Now, therefore, the Governor in exercise o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... authorities. The contention of the appellant is that the order of detention was made on September 27, 1965 by the Chief Minister, West Bengal not because of any material suggesting that the appellant was acting, in any manner, prejudicial to the maintenance of public order but because of the false reports made by the police and Customs officers. The next contention of the appellant is that there is no affidavit filed on behalf of the Chief Minister, West Bengal showing that he applied his mine to the case of the appellant and that he had the requisite satisfaction as required by the statutory rule. I was also submitted that the High Court did not permit the appellant to inspect the material on the basis of which the order of detention was made and the High Court committed an error of law in not permitting the appellant to go beyond the authenticated order of detention and to find out whether the satisfaction of the Chief Minister, West Bengal was based upon sufficient material. 6. Before proceeding to deal with these points raised on behalf of the appellant it is necessary to state that in Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab 1964 CriLJ 269, and in Durgadas Shirali v. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a matter of law. It only means that the statutory power is exercised for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended. In other words, the power conferred by the statute has been utilised for some indirect purpose not connected with the object of the statute or the mischief it seeks to remedy. 7. It is contended, in the first place, on behalf of the appellant that the order of detention is bad because the Chief Minister had taken into account the reports from the police and Customs officers falsely made against the appellant. It is argued by Mr. N. C. Chatterji that the order or detention is bad because the statutory power has been exercised mala fide that is to say, it has been utilised for some indirect purpose not connected with the object of the statute or the mischief which it seeks to remedy. The allegation of the appellant has been denied by Mr. Sen Gupta, Deputy Secretary to the West Bengal Government, Home Department in his affidavit made on behalf of the Government of West Bengal. It is stated by Mr. Sen Gupta that in making the order of detention dated September 27, 1965 the Chief Minister, West Bengal did not take into consideration the criminal proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... language or r. 30 it is not ordinarily open to a court to enter into an investigation about the sufficiency of the material on which the order of detention is based. The legal position has been explained by the Judicial Committee in King Emperor v. Shibnath Banerjee 72 I.A. 241, as follows: "It is quite a different thing to question the accuracy of a recital contained in a duly authenticated order, particularly where the recital purports to state as a fact the carrying out of what I regard as a condition necessary to the valid making of that order. In the normal case the existence of such a recital in a duly authenticated order will, in the absence of any evidence as to its inaccuracy, be accepted by a court as establishing that the necessary condition was fulfilled. The presence of the recital in the order will place a difficult burden on the detenu to produce admissible evidence sufficient to establish even a prima FACIE case that the recital is not accurate". 10. Reference may be made, in this connection, to Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson [1942] A.C. 206 and Greene v. Secretary of State of Home Affairs [1942] A.C. 284. The question in those cases was whether the Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... existence of such a recital in a duly authenticated order will, in the absence of any evidence as to its inaccuracy, be accepted by the court as establishing that the necessary condition was fulfilled. In other words, in a normal case the existence of such a recital in a duly authenticated order that the State Government was satisfied will, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be accepted by the court as establishing that the State Government was so satisfied. If the order of detention itself suffers from any lacuna it is open to a court to call for an affidavit from the Chief Minister or other Minister concerned or to call for the relevant file from the State Government in order to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the recital made in the order of detention. 13. For instance, in Biren Dutta etc. v. Chief Commissioner of Tripura, 1965 CriLJ 501, this Court made an order directing the Chief Secretary to the Tripura Administration to transmit to this Court the original files in respect of the detenus and also directed the Minister concerned or the Secretary or the Administrator to file an affidavit in this Court stating all the material facts indicating whether the ....