Decided on August 22,1950

STATE Respondents


Ray, C.J. - (1.) The petitioner (Kulamoni Mohanty) has been ordered to be detained for one year by the Government of Orissa from 28-2-1950 under Schedule (1), Preventive Detention Act (IV [4] of 1950). Long after this detention, that is on 19-6-1950, he was served with a copy of the grounds as contemplated in Schedule of the Act, wherein he was told that he had a right to make a representation against the order of detention.
(2.) We have no information if he has made any such representation. In his petition to this Court, he asserts that he had been holding a service in B.N. Rly, for the last eleven years and had not been officially suspended or dismissed. This assertion is intended to convey that he is a man who is following peaceful avocation of life and no blemish has been found in his career as a public servant by his immediate superior. He further says that he was first arrested on 24-21950 under Schedule 07, Criminal P. C. but no proceeding under the section was started. He was then put under detention for three months by the District Magistrate of Cuttack as per his order No. 354. Res. of 28-2-1950. He further says that just prior to the termination of this period of detention, the Chief Secretary to the Government; of Orissa revoked the above mentioned order of detention by the District Magistrate. Then came the present order which is now the subject of consideration. This order is dated 16-5-1950, but it prescribes his Kulamoni Mohanty vs. The State (22.08.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 3 detention as under the order to take effect from 28-2-1950. It does not appear that the District Magistrate gave him copy of the grounds for the detention order passed by him. It is imperative under Schedule of the Act. The section says: "7 (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order, ....and in a case where it has been made by .... an officer subordinate there to (State Government) to the State Government." It is apparent that since 28th February till 16th May, his detention was insisted upon without affording him the necessary opportunity of making a representation to the State Government.
(3.) The petitioner also avers in the penultimate paragraph of his petition that there is every reason and proof to believe that the grounds supplied to him are not even genuinely misconceived notions of the Government regarding him, and they are but formal recitals of a fixed formula for justifying the detentions of such persons against whom the Government cannot find any actual ground; the petitioner submits this because he finds the grounds of his detention to be completely and entirely a faithful copy of the grounds (even including the numbers of the orders containing them in some cases) supplied to four other detenus who are now in this (Cuttack) Jail along with the petitioner : the detenus concerned are Shyamaghan Ray Chowdhury, Govinda Chandra Sarangi, Graja Tripathy and Jaldhar Nanda.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.