Case: Shamrao Vishnu Parulekar Vs. The District Magistrate, Thana(And Connected Petition)

sense from that which it bears in another part of an Act. (Statute Law, Edn.5, P.159). And Maxwell, on whose statement of the law the petitioners rely. observes further on:"But the presumption is not of much weight. The same word may be used in different senses in the same statute, and even in the same section." (Interpretation of Statutes, page 322).6. Examining the two provisions in their context, it will be seen that Section 3 (1) confers on the Central Govt. and the State Govt. the power to pass an order of detention, when the grounds mentioned in that sub-clause exist. When an order is made under this provision, the right of the detenu under S.7 is to be informed of the grounds of detention, as soon as may be, and that is to enable him to make a representation against that order, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5). Coming next to S. 3 (2), it provides for the power which is conferred on the State Govt. under S.3 (1) being exercised by certain authorities with reference to the matters specified therein. This being a delegation of the power conferred on the State Govt. under S.3 (1), with a view to ensure that the delegate acts within his authority and fairly and properly and that the State exercises due and effective control and supervision over him, S.3 (3) enacts a special procedure to be observed when action is taken under S.3 (2). The authority making the order under S.3 (2) is accordingly required to report the fact of the order forthwith to the State along with the grounds therefor, and if the State does not approve of the order within twelve days, it is automatically to lapse.These provisions are intended to regulate the course of business between the State Government and the authorities subordinate to it exercising its power under statutory delegation; and their scope is altogether different from that of S. 7 which deals with the right of the detenu as against the State Government and its subordinate authorities. S.3 (3) requires the authority do communicate the grounds of its order to the State Government, so that the latter might satisfy itself whether detention should be approved. S. 7 requires the statement of grounds to be sent to the detenu, so that he might make a representation against the order. The purpose of the two sections is so different that it cannot be presumed that the expression "the grounds on which the order has been made" is used in S.3 (3) in the same sense which it bears in S.7.7. That the legislature could not have contemplated that the grounds mentioned in S.3(3) should be identical with those referred to in S.7 could also be seen from the fact thatwhereas under S.7(2) it is open to the authority not to disclose to the detenu facts if it considers that it would he against public interests so to do, it is these facts that will figure prominently in a report by the subordinate authority to the State Govt. S.3(3), and form the basis for approval. If the grounds which are furnished under S. 3(3) could contain matters which need not be communicated to the detenu under S.7, the expression. "grounds on which the order has been made" cannot bear the same meaning in both the sections.8. There is also another reason in support of this conclusion. When the authority mentioned in S. 3(2) decides on a consideration of the materials placed before it, to act under that section and orders detention, it is required by S .3 (3) to report that fact with the grounds therefor to the State Government,forthwith. But under S. 7, the duty of the authority is to communicate the grounds to the detenu,as soon as may be. Now, it has been held that as the object of this provision is to give the detenu an opportunity to make a representation against the order, the grounds must be sufficiently definite and detailed to enable him to do so. It is obvious that the communication that has to be served on the detenu under S. 7 of the Act is a formal document setting out the grounds for the order and the particulars in support thereof, subject, of course, to S.7(2); whereas the report to the State under S.3(3) is a less formal document in the nature of a confidential inter-departmental communication, which is to contain the particulars on which the order was made. It could not have been intended that the contents of the two communications which are so dissimilar in their scope and intendment should be identical.9. Mr. N. C. Chatterjee also cited certain observations of Kania C. J. in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya,1951 S C 167 at p.178: (AIR 1951 S C 157 at p. 161) (A) as supporting his contention that the grounds which are furnished to the detenu must have been before the Sate Government before it approves of the order. Said the learned Chief Justice:"It is obvious that the grounds for making the order as mentioned above, are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to make the order. These grounds therefore must be in existence when the order is made."But the grounds referred to in the above passages are the reasons for making the order, not the formal expressions in which they are embodied, and that will be clear from the following observation further on:"By their very nature the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the facts."10. Our conclusion is that the failure on the part of the District Magistrate of Thana to send along with his report under S.3(3), the very grounds which he subsequently communicated to the detenu under S.7 is not a breach of the requirements of that sub-section, and that it was sufficiently complied with when he reported the materials on which he made the order.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]communication further states that it is not in the public interests to disclose further facts. Reading the communication as whole, we are of opinion that it is sufficiently definite to apprise the petitioners of what they were charged with and to enable them to give their explanation therefor. That was the view taken by Chagla C. J. in the applications for habeas corpus, which the petitioners moved in the High Court of Bombay under Act: 226 of the Constitution, and we are in agreement with it. The complaint that the grounds are vague must thereforeOxford Concise Dictionary gives the following meanings to the word "ground": Base, foundation, motive, valid reason. On this definition, the materials on which the District Magistrate considered that an order of detention should be made could properly be described as groundsrule of construction contended for by the petitioners is well-settled, but that is only one element in deciding what the true import of the enactment is, to ascertain which it is necessary to have regard to the purpose behind the particular provision, and its setting in the scheme of the statute. "The presumption," says Craies, "that the same words are used in the same meaning is however very slight, and it is proper if sufficient reason can he assigned, to construe a word in one part of an Act in a different sense from that which it bears in another part of an Act. (Statute Law, Edn.5,is obvious that the communication that has to be served on the detenu under S. 7 of the Act is a formal document setting out the grounds for the order and the particulars in support thereof, subject, of course, to S.7(2); whereas the report to the State under S.3(3) is a less formal document in the nature of a confidential inter-departmental communication, which is to contain the particulars on which the order was made. It could not have been intended that the contents of the two communications which are so dissimilar in their scope and intendment should beconclusion is that the failure on the part of the District Magistrate of Thana to send along with his report under S.3(3), the very grounds which he subsequently communicated to the detenu under S.7 is not a breach of the requirements of that sub-section, and that it was sufficiently complied with when he reported the materials on which he made the order.