Case: Satya Deo Prasad Gupta Vs. State of Bihar &amp; Others

2. The petitioner is the karta of a joint Hindu family and as such karta he runs a shop for selling medicines and drugs under the name of Popular Pharmacy in Ranchi. On 22nd April, 1974, at about 8p. m. one Vijoy Shankar accompanied by R. N. P. Dube, Executive Magistrate, went to the shop of the petitioner and asked for certain medicines according to a prescription made out by a House Surgeon of the Medical College, Ranchi. The petitioner, who was present at the shop, asked Vijoy Shankar and R. N. P. Dube to come at 8.30 p. m and stated that he would then be able to supply the medicines to them. Vijoy Shankar and Dube accordingly visited the shop again at 8.30 p. m. when the petitioner supplied most of the medicines mentioned in the prescription. Amongst the medicines so supplied were two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether. The petitioner charged for these two ampoules of pathedine Rs. 3/- as against the price of 90 paise per ampoule shown in the current price list and for the bottle of ether, which contained 450, gross, he charged Rs. 20/- as against the price of Rs. 6.85 shown in the current price list. This was in contravantion of paragraph 15 (2) of the Drug (Price Control) Order, 1970. The petitioner also refused to issue cash memo in respect of the two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether supplied by him, though he was bound to do so under paragraph 22 of the Drug (Price Control) Order, 1970. When asked by Vijoy Shankar and R. N. P. Dube to give his name, the petitioner falsely and deliberately gave his name as Sailendra Kumar Gupta though his real name was Satya Deo Prasad Gupta.3. It appears that on the following day, that is, 23rd April, 1974, a group of persons claiming to be representatives of a body known as Nao Nirman Samiti came to the petitioners shop, forcibly took him out and after placing a garland of shoes around his neck and affixing a placard displaying the slogan : Main blackmarketeer hun. Chhao rupia ka ether bees rupia men bechta hun - Popular Medical, Bariat-u", paraded him through the streets in a rickshaw with a rope tied around his waist. " The New Republic", a local newspaper, published in its issue dated 27th April, 1974, a photograph of the petitioner as he was being paraded in this procession. This incident exemplified the wrath and anger of the people against the petitioner as they fat that he was blackmarketing and profiteering in such essential commodities as medicines and drugs.4. The District Magistrate, Ranchi thereafter issued an order of detention under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directing that Sailendra Kumar Gupta - that being the name given by the petitioner to Vijoy Shankar and R. N. P. Dube at the time when they made purchases from him should be detained as it was necessary so to do with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This order of detention had, however, to be cancelled since the real name of the petitioner was Satya Deo Prasad Gupta and not Sailendra Kumar Gupta as mentioned in the order of detention. The District Magistrate then issued another order dated 11th June, 1974 of detention under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 11th July, 1974 and at the time of his arrest, grounds of detention were served on him. These grounds related to the incident of 22nd April, 1974 when the petitioner had sold two ampoules of pathedine and one bottle of ether at prices exceeding those shown in the current list of prices in contravention of paragraph 15 (2) of the Drug (Price Control) Order, 1970 and refused to issue cash memo in respect of these sales though required to do so under paragraph 22 of that order and it was on the basis of these grounds of detention that the District Magistrate had arrived at the requisite subjective satisfaction leading to the making of the order of detention. The District Magistrate immediately after making the order of detention, reported the fact to the State Government and the order of detention was approved by the State Government within the period prescribed by Section 3, sub-section (3). The State Government thereafter placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board on 9th August, 1974 as required by Section 10. It appears that the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention was not received until this date and it could not, therefore, be forwarded to the Advisory Board at the time when the papers relating to the case of the petitioner were forwarded to it. Subsequently, however, on 16th August, 1974 the representation of the petitioner was received and the State Government immediately sent it to the Advisory Board for its consideration. The Advisory Board, after considering the grounds of detention, the other material placed before it and the representation of the petitioner made a report dated 20th August, 1974 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause to detain the petitioner. The State Government should have immediately thereafter proceeded to consider the representation of the petitioner and decided whether or not to confirm the order of detention under S. 12, sub-section (1) but no such action was taken by the State Government for some time. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the validity of the detention.

Court's reasoning:
7. We have already referred to the original record of the case and that clearly shows that though the representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on 16th August, 1974 and the Advisory Board, after considering the case of the petitioner and taking into account his representation, give its opinion on 20th August, 1974, the State Government slept over the matter for a period of about three months and considered the representation of the petitioner only on 15th November, 1974 after the hearing of the petition had been adjourned on 11th November, 1974. There was obviously inordinate delay on the part of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner. There is no explanation for this inordinate delay offered by the State Government. We asked Mr. U.P. Singh whether he was in a position on behalf of the State Government to offer an explanation for this apparently unreasonable delay, but he confessed his inability to do so. We fail to see why the State Government should not have been able to consider the representation of the petitioner for about three months. This only shows callous disregard of the constitutional provision which requires that the representation of a detenu must be considered without avoidable delay. The constitutional requirement of affording an opportunity to a detenu to make a representation against the order of detention is intended to provide a safeguard against improper or unjustified exercise of the power of detention and it is for this reason that the decisions of this Court have always insisted that the representation of the detenu should be considered promptly and without undue delay, so that if it is found by the detaining authority, on considering the representation, that the grounds on which the order of detention has been made are incorrect or non-existent or irrelevant, the detaining authority itself may cancel the order of detention and the detenu may be freed from unjustified detention at the earliest opportunity. Here there was absolutely no justification - at least none could be pointed out - why the State Government could not consider the representation of the petitioner for about threeon this ground alone, the detention of the petitioner must be held to be invalid.8. There is also another ground which must result in invalidation of the detention of the petitioner. The law is now well settled as a result of a decision of this Court in D. S. Roy v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1972 SC 1924  that on a proper interpretation of Article 22, clause (4) of the Constitution, the confirmation of the detention with a view to continue it beyond a period of three months, on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, must be within three months from the date of detention. The confirmation of the detention must, therefore, follow within three months from the date of detention. Here, in the present case, the petitioner was detained pursuant to the order of detention on 11th July, 1974 and the order confirming the detention should, therefore, have been passed at the latest on 11th October, 1974. But the State Government, though it received the opinion of the Advisory Board as far back as 20th August, 1974, did not bestir itself for well nigh three months and it was only on 15th November, 1974 that it suddenly woke up to make the order of confirmation. The order of confirmation was clearly made beyond three months from the date of detention and there is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the order of detention must be held to be invalid.We may point out that the decision of this Court in AIR 1972 SC 1924  was given as far back as 7th December, 1971 and yet the State Government in the present case acted in contravention of the constitutional mandate enunciated and explained in that decision. Taking a charitable view of the matter we may presume that the State Government was not aware of this decision. But that can hardly be an excuse for violation of the law. We think it would be desirable if some machinery is set up by the Government of India or the State Governments by which the decisions of this Court in cases of preventive detention are brought to the notice of the executive authorities so soon as they are handed down so that the executive authorities know what is the law laid down by this Court and they can conform to it.