Orissa High CourtRama Chandra Das @ Babu Bhoi vs State Of Orissa 85 Others .......... .. ... on 29 January, 2009Author:L.MohapatraBench:L.MohapatraHIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
W.P.(Criminal) NO. 708'OF 2008

In the matter of an application underArticles 226and227of the
Constitution of India.

Rama Chandra Das @ Babu Bhoi ......... .. Petitioner
-Versus-

State of Orissa 85 Others .......... .. Opp. Parties

For Petitioner M/s. D.P.Dhal, A.Rath,S.K.Das,
S.Mohapatra, A.K.Mishra
& B.S.Dasparida.

For Opp. Parties Addl. Standing Counsel.

P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.MOHAPATRA
85
THE" HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I. MAHANTY.

Date of hearing: 29.01.2009 Date of Judgment: 29.1.2009

L.Mohapatra,J.
detention dated 16.7.2008 passed by the learned District Magistrate,

The petitioner in this writ application assails the order of

Puri in exercise of powers conferred by Sub--section (2) ofSection 3of the
National Security Act, 1980( in short "the Act").

2. Mr. Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
assails the order of detention only on the ground that the order of
detention was passed on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of
Police, Puri, but the detenu-petitioner was not supplied with a copy of
the report of the S.P., Puri,



3.

in Paragrap
of the Superintendent of Police was not supplied to the petitioner
because, it is confidential in nature and addressed to the District
Magistrate, Puri. However, the order of detention clearly showspithatg 
had been passed on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of

Police. The relevant portion of the averm

t\)

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Collector, Puri and
h--D of the said counter affidavit, it is admitted that the report

paragraph is quoted hereunder:-

4.

others reported in 1984 CR1. L.J. 1402 a similar question came for

consideration and in paragraph-7 of the judgment this Court observed in

"xxx xxx xxx xxx. These papers are just '

sufficient for the purpose of representation, if the
detenu has any invalid points to put forth against
the order of ' detention. The report of the
Superintendent of Police, Puri was not supplied to
the detenu because it is conﬁdential in nature and
addressed to the District Magistrate, Puri. It is not
a fact that the detention order is made violating
principles of natural justice."

In the case of Pramila Bastia vrs. State of Orissa and

the following manner:--

"Now -coming to the other contention
raised on behalf of the petitioner that the detenu
was deprived' of his right to submit an effective
representation against the order of detention due to
failure on the .part of the authorities to supply all
the materials, we are constrained to hold that the
contention has substantial force. It is well settled
that all documents, statements and other materials
incorporated in the grounds by reference and which
might have inﬂuenced the mind of the detaining
authority, in arriving at the requisite subjective
satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu (AIR
1981 SC 1389:( 1981 Cri LJ 1011) Abdul Azij v.
Delhi Administration). Failure to comply with this
requirement would amount to breach of the
mandate contained inArt. 22(5)of the Constitution.
It is also well settled that in preventive detention
jurisprudence whatever .little safeguards the

ents made in the aforesaid



U.)

Constitution and the enactment authorizing such
detention provide assume utmost importance and
must be strictly adhered to. A specific averment has
been made in the additional afﬁdavit ﬁled by the
petitioner that the report submitted by the
Superintendent of Police, Cuttack was considered
by the detaining authority (O.P.No.2) while passing. 7 
the order of detention but no copy of the same was
supplied to the detenu. Though the detaining
authority has personally sworn the affidavits in
reply to the writ petition this averments has not
been expressly denied. He has neither denied the ,
existence of the report nor has he stated that the
same was not considered by him while passing the
order of detention. Indeed, from the records
submitted by the learned Additional Government
Advocate, we find that the report of the
Superintendent of Police is available in the file. In
these circumstances, it is difficult for us to accept
the contention of the a learned Additional
Government Advocate that contents of the report in
question did not weigh with the detaining authority
while passing the order of detention. Accordingly,
we must hold that the petitioner was prejudiced for
non-supply of the report of the Superintendent of
Police, Cuttack in making an effective
representation against the order of detention. The
order of detention is vitiated on this ground also."

This decision was later on followed by this Court in the case
of Sallendra Kumar Jora vs. District Magistrate 8; Two Ors. reported
in (2007) 36 OCR- 833 in which this Court has held that non-supply of
report of the Superintendent of Police affects the fundamental right of the
detenu and in absence of the report on the basis of which the order of
detention was passed, the detenu could not have defended him-self
properly.

5. In View of the above two decisions and on consideration of
the admission on the part of the Collector, Puri that the report of the
Superintendent of Police had not been supplied to the detenu-petitioner,

the order of detention becomes un--sustainable in law. Accordingly, we



allow the writ application and quash the order of detention dated
16.7.2008passed by the District Magistrate, Puri under Annexure--1 and
direct that the petitioner--Rama Chandra Das, alias Babu Bhoi, S / 0 late
Sanatan Das@ Bhoi of Old Sadar P.S lane, P.S. Kumbharapada of

s-District Puri be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is nolonger

required in connection with any other case. There would be no order as

to costs.9/, L ~Mo/~c#>W*""*»Tv

9/» 3-MM'"Q/713'
7v» '
5569' ml? r

ORISSA HIGH COURT; CUTTACK
The 29th January, 2009/ AKD.