MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1951-12-2
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 10,1951

MAKHAN SINGH TARSIKKA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PRAVIN MAHIPATRAI MEHTA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SURENDRANAGAR [LAWS(GJH)-1993-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHANDRA SHARMA VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL [LAWS(ALL)-1999-7-13] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR MISRA VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2002-7-75] [FOLLOWED ON]
NATHUNI LAL GUPTA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1963-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
NATHUNI LAL GUPTA VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1963-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
MADHUSUDAN MANDAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1973-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
NOOR JAHAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1991-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL SHAH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-1988-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA MANSUKHLAL VS. POLICE COMMR GREATER BOMBAY [LAWS(BOM)-1988-4-15] [REFERRED TO]
PANDIAN VS. STATE REP [LAWS(MAD)-2003-3-209] [REFERRED TO]
SHABBIRBHAI BOOKWALA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-167] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1999-3-22] [REFERRED]
INDER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
TEJ SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
MALUBHAI BHIKHUBHAI CHAVDA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE RAJKOT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-3-6] [REFFERD]
LABHUBHAI GAGJIBHAI VAGRI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-3-68] [REFERRED]
STATE VS. SOMNATH MAHPATRA [LAWS(ORI)-1952-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
FARIDA VS. AJAI KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(KAR)-2007-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
P K BOSE VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(KER)-2009-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
ADIL CHAUS S/O HAMAD CHAUS VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(BOM)-2012-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
UDAY MOHANLAL ACHARYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2001-3-40] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARALOO VS. SUPDT CENTRAL JAIL HYDERABAD STATE [LAWS(SC)-1952-11-8] [REFERRED]
NARANJAN SINGH NATHAWAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-1952-1-1] [RELIED ON]
PURANLAL LAKHANPAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1957-9-2] [RELIED ON]
AYSHA NAZREEM VS. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMAGHANA RAY VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1952-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1969-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
SATHI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2009-7-135] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KANTA VS. STATE [LAWS(GAU)-1952-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NIRALA YADAV @ RAJA RAM YADAV @ DEEPAK YADAV [LAWS(SC)-2014-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
GHULAM QADIR GANIE VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2011-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL AHAD PARRA VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2011-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
NANGELI AMMA VS. GOVINDAN NAMBISSAN [LAWS(KER)-1993-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SUBHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-1955-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHMALI VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2009-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
J BUJJI VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2014-10-55] [REFERRED TO]
HAREN KALITA VS. THE STATE [LAWS(GAU)-1953-4-9] [REFERRED TO]
ISRATH BEGUM VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2015-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KOLI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND FOUR OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU LAL MEENA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(RAJ)-2000-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA S/O MOHAMMAD MASTAN VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
RAMEEZ MOHI-UD-DIN LONE VS. STATE OF J&K AND ORS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
MANZOOR AHMAD DAR VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2019-11-29] [REFERRED TO]
GUGU @ SUBASIS KHUNTIA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
A. B. VENKATESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR PARIDA VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2020-8-23] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Patanjali Sastri, C. J. - (1.)This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for the release of the petitioner from his alleged unlawful detention. We accepted the petition and, at the conclusion of the hearing, ordered the petitioner to be released. We now proceed to give the reasons for our order.
(2.)The petitioner was arrested and detained under an order dated 1-3-1950 made by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, under S. 3 (1), Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereafter referred to as "the Act') and the grounds of detention were communicated to the petitioner as required by S. 7 of the Act on 15-3-1950. The petitioner challenged the validity of the order on various grounds, but, while the petition was pending after this Court issued a rule nisi to the respondent, the petitioner was served on 6th August with another detention order dated 30-7-1951 purporting to be made by the Governor of Punjab under sub-s. (1) of S. 3 and S. 4 of the Act as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, and he was served with fresh grounds of detention on 16-8-1951. Thereupon the petitioner filed a supplementary petition impugning the validity of the said order on the ground, inter alia, that it directed the detention of the petitioner up to 31-3-1952, the date on which the Act itself was to expire and that this was contrary to the provisions of the Act as amended. On behalf of the respondent, the Advocate-General of Punjab urged that the said order was not intended to be a fresh order of detention but was passed only with a view to limiting the period of detention till 31-3-1952 as it had been held in some cases that an order of detention for an indefinite period was bad. The order runs as follows:
"Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied with respect to the person known as Makhan Singh Tarsikka, son of Gujjar Singh, Jat, of Tarsikka, Police Station Jandiala, Amritsar District, that with a view of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to make the following order:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 and S. 4, Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950), as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951 (Act IV of 1951), the Governor of Punjab hereby directs that the said Makhan Singh Tarsikka be committed to the custody of the Inspector - General of Prisons, Punjab, and detained in any jail of the State till 31-3-1952, subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified by a general order or as contained in the Punjab Communist Detenu Rules, 1950.

(3.)It will be seen that the terms of the order make it clear that it was intended to operate as a fresh order for the detention of the petitioner and this view is strengthened by the fact that the order was followed by the service of a fresh set of grounds on the petitioner as required by S. 7 of the Act, a proceeding which would be wholly unnecessary if no fresh order of detention was intended. Indeed, it was suggested on behalf of the petitioner that the said order followed by service of fresh grounds only four days before the dated fixed for the hearing of the petition by this Court was a deliberate move by the respondent to circumvent the objections raised by the petitioner to the validity of the earlier order of 1-3-1950 and thus render the proceedings infructuous. However that may be, we are clearly of opinion that the order dated 30-7-1951 must be regarded as a fresh order made for the petitioner's detention in supersession of the earlier order and the question is whether it was illegal in that it straightaway directed that the petitioner be detained till 31-3-1952, which was the date of the expiry of the Act.
;


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