Skip to content


Satyabrata Seal Alias Dulu Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided On

Case Number

Writ Petition No. 278 of 1972

Judge

Reported in

AIR1973SC756; 1973CriLJ595; (1973)3SCC879

Appellant

Satyabrata Seal Alias Dulu

Respondent

State of West Bengal and ors.

Excerpt:


.....-- sections 46 & 45 & development control rules, 1967, rule 10(2), environment (protection) act (29 of 1986), section 3 & environment (protection) rules 1986, rule 5(3)(d): coastal regulation zone notification dated 19.2.1991 permission for development of land held, the permission to develop land that falls in coastal regulation zone ii (crz-ii) category has to be granted as per development control rules, 1967. fat that the application for development has been made in 2005 i.e., much after new development control regulations had been enforced, notwithstanding. this is because of the notification issued by the ministry of environment and forest under the provisions of the environment protection act, 1986 regulating building activities in coastal zones which is known as coastal regulation zone notification. the said notification classifies the area within 500 meters of high tide land, into crz-i, crz-ii, crz-iii and crz-iv categories. the notification inter alia provides that buildings shall be permitted only on the landward side of the existing road and buildings and shall be subject to the existing local town and country planning regulations including the existing norms of..........to the order of detention dated august 21, 1971 he too was arrested on november 11, 1971 when the grounds of detention were also served on him. the fact of making the detention order was reported to the state government on august 23, 1971 and the state government approved the same on august 31, 1971. the same day the necessary report was submitted to the central government, his case was placed before the advisory board on december 9, 1971 and the board gave its decision on january 19, 1971. his representation was received by the state government on december 10, 1971 and was considered by the said government on january 18, 1972. the state government confirmed the detention order on february 2, 1972 and it was communicated to the detenu on february 7, 1972.2. the grounds of his detention are:1. on 16-4-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with others committed murderous assault on shri bulo das gupta on the road in front of the manila samiti at dhupguri, police station dhupguri, dist. jalpaiguri causing severe injuries to his persson. shri das gupta subsequently died in hospital. as a result of this murder committed by you people of the locality became highly terrorised and the.....

Judgment:


I.D. Dua, J.

1. Satyabrata Seal alias Dulu has forwarded the present petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus from Dum Dum Central Jail in the State of West Bengal. Like Manu Bhusan Roy Prodhan in W. P. No. 252 of 1972 : reported in : 1974CriLJ401 pursuant to the order of detention dated August 21, 1971 he too was arrested on November 11, 1971 when the grounds of detention were also served on him. The fact of making the detention order was reported to the State Government on August 23, 1971 and the State Government approved the same on August 31, 1971. The same day the necessary report was submitted to the Central Government, His case was placed before the Advisory Board on December 9, 1971 and the Board gave its decision on January 19, 1971. His representation was received by the State Government on December 10, 1971 and was considered by the said Government on January 18, 1972. The State Government confirmed the detention order on February 2, 1972 and it was communicated to the detenu on February 7, 1972.

2. The grounds of his detention are:

1. On 16-4-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with others committed murderous assault on Shri Bulo Das Gupta on the road in front of the Manila Samiti at Dhupguri, Police Station Dhupguri, Dist. Jalpaiguri causing severe injuries to his persson. Shri Das Gupta subsequently died in Hospital. As a result of this murder committed by you people of the locality became highly terrorised and the public peace was greatly disturbed.

2. On 18-7-71 at about 19.30 hours you along with others forcibly entered into Dhupguri High School, Police Station Dhupguri, District Jalpaiguri and set fire to the school buildings causing irreparable loss to the school with the ulterior object of causing dislocation in the present system of education and to compel the school authorities to close down the same. As a result of the fire set by you, the teachers and the local people became panic stricken and the public peace was greatly disturbed.

These two grounds are exactly similar to the grounds on the basis of which Manu Bhusan Roy Prodhan was detained in W.P. 252 of 1972 : reported in : 1974CriLJ401 . As a matter of fact it appears that the present petitioner was one of the persons who, according to the detaining authority, associated with Manu Bhusan, Roy Prodhan in the course of the two incidents mentioned in both these writ petitions. In W.P. 252 of 1972 we have held that ground No. 1 is irrelevant and that ground is not of an unessential nature and its exclusion from consideration might reasonably have affected the subjective satisfaction of the authority making the impugned order of detention. On this ground the present petition has also to be allowed.

3. In the present case, how-ever, there is also an additional infirmity. The representation made by the petitioner to the State Government was received by the State Government on December 10, 1971 but was considered by it only on January 18, 1972. The explanation for this delay as stated in the counter-affidavit is as under:.that delay was also caused due to abrupt, increase in number of detention cases during that time as there was spate of anti-social activities by Naxalite and other political extremists in the State.

This explanation appears to be much too vague and indefinite and this would also have rendered the petitioner's detention thereafter illegal. However, as the grounds of detention are outside the statute the impugned order of detention is liable to be struck down on that ground alone. We had directed the petitioner's release on October 5, 1972. We have now record ed our reasons for doing so.


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