NDLI: Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Preventive detention-Order of detention by the District Magis- trate
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (4 of 1950)
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Application Dismissed
Headnote	Preventive detention-Order of detention by the District Magistrate-Report sent to the State Government-Approval by the State Grounds for the order sent later-Validity of detention-" Grounds on which the order has been made", Interpretation of-Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (IV of 19~0), ss. 8(2)(8), 7.Sub-section (3) of s. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, provides that when an order of detention is made under sub-Section (2) by an officer mentioned therein, he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made ... and no such order ... shall remain in force for more than twelve days alter the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government. Under s. 7(1) "when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall ... 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 to the appropriate Government' . The petitioners were arrested on 27th January 1956 in pursuance of the orders of detention passed under s. 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, by the District Magistrate who sent his report the next day to the State Government which approved of the same on 3rd February 1956. Meantime, the grounds on which the orders of detention were made were formulated by the District Magistrate who furnished the same to the petitioners on 31st January 1956 under s. 7 of the Act. A copy of these grounds was sent to the State Government on 6th February 1956. The petitioners challenged the validity of the detention and contended, inter alia, that as the expression "grounds on which the order has been made" occurring in s. 3(3) is word for word, the same as in s. 7 of the Act, it must have the same meaning and as the copy of the grounds referred to in s. 7 had not been sent along with the report under s. 3(3) to the State Government before it had approved of the orders of detention there was a violation of the procedure prescribed by the statute and consequently the detention became illegal. It was found that the report sent by the District Magistrate set out not merely the fact of the making of the order of detention but also the materials on which he had made the order. Held, that the failure on the part of the District Magistrate to send a.long with his report under s. 3(3) the very grounds which he subsequently furnished the detenu under s. 7, is not e. brae.ch of the requirements of the.t sub-section and that it was sufficiently complied with when he reported the materials on which he made the order. The scope and intendment of the expression the grounds on which the order has been made" in ss. 3(3) end 7 of the Act are quite different and it is not essential that the grounds which are ' furnished to the detenu must have been before the State Government before it approves of the order.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.L Venkatarama Aiyyar
Neutral Citation	1956 INSC 42
Petitioner	Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar
Respondent	The District Magistrate, Thana
SCR	[1956] 1 S.C.R. 644
Judgement Date	1956-09-17
Case Number	100

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana

Please Log-in to view this content

Shamarao V. Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and Two Others

Bidya Deb Barma Etc. Vs. District Magistrate, Tripura, Agartala

Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr.

Godavari Parulekar Vs. State of Bombay and Others

Mohammad Afzal Khan Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr

Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay

Daktar Mudi Vs. State of West Bengal

Subhash Popatlal Dave Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana

Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Shamarao V. Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana, Bombay and Two Others

Bidya Deb Barma Etc. Vs. District Magistrate, Tripura, Agartala

Rameshwar Shaw Vs. District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr.

Godavari Parulekar Vs. State of Bombay and Others

Mohammad Afzal Khan Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir

Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr

Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay

Daktar Mudi Vs. State of West Bengal

Subhash Popatlal Dave Vs. Union of India and Anr.

Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana