{"id":214625,"date":"1982-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982"},"modified":"2016-03-31T10:12:20","modified_gmt":"2016-03-31T04:42:20","slug":"biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","title":{"rendered":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1539, \t\t 1983 SCR (1) 584<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBIRU MAHATO\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/10\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1539\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 584\n 1982 SCC  (3) 322\t  1982 SCALE  (2)899\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1982 SC1548\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n     National Security\tAct, 1980,  Section 3(2)  Scope\t of-\nPreventive  detention\tof  the\t detenu\t whose\tliberty\t has\notherwise already  been prevented  by  keeping\tin  jail  is\nimpermissible  under   the  N.S.  Act-Non-awareness  of\t the\ndetaining authority  about the\tdetenu's detention  in\tjail\nwould vitiate  the order  of detention on the ground of non-\napplication  of\t  mind-Affidavit  should   be  that  of\t the\ndetaining authority  who had  the subjective satisfaction of\nthe detention.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Detenu Biru  Mahato was arrested on January 13, 1982 on\nthe allegation\tthat he\t was involved in two incidents which\noccurred, first\t at 5  p.m. and\t the second  at 5.30 p.m. on\nJanuary 12,  1982. In  the first  occurrence detenu  and his\nassociates were\t alleged to  have committed  offences  under\nsections 341,  323 and\t506 of Indian Penal Code, as per the\nF.I.R. 25(1)\/82\t at Bagmara  Police Station.  In the  second\ncase, F.I.R. 24(1)\/82 registered at the same police station,\nthey were said to have committed offences under sections 307\nand 323\t I.P.C. After  his arrest the detenu was confined in\nprison. In  respect of the first occurrence bail application\nwas accepted,  but in  respect of  the second occurrence the\nbail application  was rejected\tby the\tDistrict  &  Session\nJudge, Dhanbad\ton February  5, 1982,  on the ground that in\nexercise of  powers conferred  by sub  section (2) read with\nsub section  (3) of  Section 3 of the National Security Act,\n1980, the  detenu is  detained by  the order of the District\nMagistrate so  as to  prevent him  from acting in any manner\nprejudicial to\tthe maintenance of public order and the bail\napplication has\t become infructuous.  On February  10, 1982,\ngrounds of detention were served on the detenu in jail where\nhe was\talready detained.  The grounds of detention referred\nto the\ttwo incidents  occurred on  January  12,  1982.\t The\ndetenu made  a representation on February 15, 1982 which was\nrejected by  the State\tGovernment on February 16, 1982. The\ncase of\t the detenu  was referred  to the Advisory Board and\nafter receipt  of its  report the State Government confirmed\nthe order of detention.\n     Detenu preferred a petition for a writ of habeas corpus\nin the\tHigh Court at Patna which was dismissed in limine by\na Division  Bench of  the High\tCourt. Hence  the appeal  by\nspecial leave and the writ petition.\n     Allowing the appeal and the petition, the Court\n^\n     HELD:  1.1\t A  preventive\taction\tpostulates  that  if\npreventive step\t is  not  taken\t the  person  sought  to  be\nprevented may  indulge into  an activity  prejudicial to the\nmaintenance of\tpublic order.  In other\t words,\t unless\t the\nactivity is  interdicted by a preventive detention order the\nactivity which is being indulged\n585\ninto is\t likely to  be repeated,  This is  the postulate  of\nsection 3 of the National Security Act. And this indubitably\ntranspires from\t the language  employed in  sub section\t (2)\nwhich says  that the detention order can be made with a view\nto preventing  the person [sought to be detained from acting\nin any\tmanner prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of  public\norder. If,  it is  shown that the man sought to be prevented\nby a  preventive order is already effectively prevented, the\npower under  sub section  (2) of  Section 3,  if  exercised,\nwould imply  that one  who is already prevented is sought to\nbe further  prevented, which  is  not  the  mandate  of\t the\nsection, and would appear tautologous. [588 C-E]\n     1.2. The  detaining  authority  before  exercising\t the\npower of  preventive detention would take into consideration\nthe past  conduct or antecedent history of the person and as\na matter of fact it is largely from the prior events showing\nthe tendencies\tor inclinations\t of a  man that an inference\ncould be  drawn whether\t he is\tlikely even in the future to\nact in\ta manner  prejudicial to  the maintenance  of public\norder. If  the\tsubjective  satisfaction  of  the  detaining\nauthority leads\t to this conclusion it can put an end to the\nactivity by  making a preventive detention order. If the man\nis already  detained a detaining authority cannot be said to\nhave  subjectively   satisfied\thimself\t that  a  preventive\ndetention order need be made. [588 E-H]\n     Ujagar Singh  v. State  of Punjab<\/a>; Jagir Singh v. State\nof Punjab,<\/a>  [1952]  SCR\t 756;  Rameshwar  Shaw\tv.  District\nMagistrate, Burdwan  and<\/a> another, [1964] 4 SCR 921; referred\nto.\n     1.3.  The\tsubjective  satisfaction  of  the  detaining\nauthority must\tcomprehend the\tvery fact  that\t the  person\nsought to  be detained is in jail or under detention and yet\na preventive  detention order  is a compelling necessity. If\nthe subjective\tsatisfaction is reached without awareness of\nthis very relevant fact, the detention order is likely to be\nvitiated. But, it will depend on the facts and circumstances\nof each case. [590 B-C]\n     Vijay Kumar  v. State  of J & K and others<\/a>, AIR 1982 SC\n1023 applied.\n     2.1. Conceding  that  in  a  given\t case  a  preventive\ndetention order is required to be made even against a person\nwho is\talready in  jail or  under detention  and  that\t the\ndetaining  authority   shows  its   awareness  of  the\tfact\nsituation and  yet passes the detention order, the detention\norder must  show on  the  face\tof  it\tthat  the  detaining\nauthority  was\t aware\tof   the  situation.  Otherwise\t the\ndetention order would suffer from vice of non-application of\nmind.\n     [590 H, 591 A-B]\n     2.2. The  awareness must be of the fact that the person\nagainst whom  the detention  order is  being made is already\nunder detention\t or in jail in respect of some offence. This\nwould show  that such  a person\t is not\t a  free  person  to\nindulge into  a prejudicial activity which is required to be\nprevented by a deten-\n586\ntion order. And this awareness must find its place either in\nthe detention  order or\t in  the  affidavit  justifying\t the\ndetention order\t when challenged.  In the  absence of it, it\nwould appear that the detaining authority was not even aware\nof this\t vital fact  and mechanically  proceeded to pass the\norder which  would unmistakably\t indicate that\tthere was no\napplication of\tmind to\t the relevant facts and any order of\nsuch serious  consequence when\tmechanically passed  without\napplication of\tmind is\t liable to  be set aside as invalid.\n[591 B-D]\n     2.3. A  person may\t be holder  of\toffice\tof  District\nMagistrate. But\t when the  subjective satisfaction of holder\nof office  who actually passed the detention order is put in\nissue, the  mere  occupant  of\toffice\tcannot\tarrogate  to\nsubstitute the\tsubjective satisfaction of the holder of the\npost who actually passed the detention order. The subsequent\noccupant can  speak from  the  record.\tBut  the  subsequent\nholder of  office  has\tmade  an  affidavit  as\t if  he\t was\nsubsequently satisfied\ta fact\tin connection  with  record.\nHere, the  affidavit of\t Mr. Brara  the subsequent holder of\noffice of  Distt. Magistrate  has to be ignored and one must\nreach the  conclusion that  the averments made by the detenu\nhave remained un-controverted. [592 B-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  -Petition (Criminal) No.
\n1125 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under article 32 of the Constitution of India)
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t      Criminal Appeal No. 488 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     (Appeal by\t special leave\tfrom the  judgment and order
\ndated 7-4-1982\tof the\tPatna High  Court (Ranchi  Bench) in
\nWrit Jurisdiction Case No. 40 of 1982 (R).\n<\/p>\n
     U.P. Singh for the Petitioner\/Appellant.
\n     D. Goburdhan for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J. By our order dated October 8, 1982, the order
\nof detention  dated February  5, 1982,\tmade by the District
\nMagistrate, Dhanbad,  against detenu Biru Mahato was quashed
\nand set\t aside by  us further stating that the reasons would
\nfollow. Here are the reasons.\n<\/p>\n
     Detenu Biru Mahato was arrested on January 13, 1982, on
\nthe allegation\tthat he\t was involved in two incidents which
\noccurred, first
\n587<\/span>
\nat 5  p.m. and\tthe second at 5.30 p.m. on January 12, 1982.
\nIn the\tfirst occurrence detenu and his associates appear to
\nhave committed offences under ss. 341, 323 and 506 read with
\ns. 34  of the  Indian Penal Code. F.I.R. led to registration
\nof the\toffences  at  Bagmara  Police  Station\tnumbered  as
\n25(1)\/82. F.I.R. No. 24(1)\/82 has been registered at Bagmara
\nPolice Station\tfor offences  under ss.\t 307 and 323, I.P.C.
\nAfter his  arrest the  detenu was  confined  in\t prison.  In
\nrespect of  the first  occurrence bail\tapplication  of\t the
\ndetenu was  accepted but in respect of the second occurrence
\nthe bail  application was rejected by the learned District &
\nSessions Judge,\t Dhanbad on  February 12,  1982. In the mean
\ntime the  District Magistrate,\tDhanbad, made  an  order  on
\nFebruary 5,  1982, in  exercise of  powers conferred by sub-
\nsection (2)  read with\tsub-section (3)\t of section 3 of the
\nNational Security  Act, 1980  (`Act’ for  short),  directing
\nthat the detenu be detained so as to prevent him from acting
\nin any\tmanner prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of  public
\norder. On  February 10,\t 1982,\tgrounds\t of  detention\twere
\nserved on  the detenu in jail where he was already detained.
\nThe grounds of detention referred to the two incidents which
\noccurred  on   January,\t 12,   1982.  The   detenu  made   a
\nrepresentation on  February 15,\t 1982, which was rejected by
\nthe State  Government on  February 16,\t1982.  Case  of\t the
\ndetenu was  referred to the Advisory Board and after receipt
\nof its\treport the  State Government  confirmed the order of
\ndetention.\n<\/p>\n
     Detenu perferred a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
\nin the\tHigh Court at Patna which was dismissed in limine by
\na Division  Bench of  the High\tCourt. Detenu has filed this
\nwrit petition  under Article  32 as  also appeal  by special
\nleave under  Art. 136. Both the appeal and writ petition are
\nbeing disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     Two contentions  were canvassed on behalf of the detenu
\n: (1)  the date on which the detention order came to be made
\nthe detenu  was already\t deprived of  his liberty  as he was
\narrested and  was confined  in jail  and, therefore,  he was
\nalready prevented from pursuing any activity which may prove
\nprejudicial to\tthe maintenance\t of public  order, hence  no
\norder of  detention could  be made  against  him;  (ii)\t the
\ndetaining authority  was not  even aware that the detenu was
\nalready in  jail and the order suffers from the vice of non-
\napplication of\tmind. In  our opinion  both the\t grounds are
\nweighty
\n588<\/span>
\nand go\tto the\troot of\t the matter  and would\tvitiate\t the
\ndetention order.\n<\/p>\n
     Sub-section (2) of s. 3 of the Act confers power on the
\nCentral Government  or the State Government to make an order
\nof detention  with a  view to  preventing  any\tperson\tfrom
\nacting in  any manner  prejudicial to  the security  of\t the
\nState  from   acting  in   any\tmanner\tprejudicial  to\t the
\nmaintenance of public order, etc. In this case the detaining
\nauthority has  made the\t order on being satisfied that it is
\nnecessary to detain the detenu with a view to preventing him
\nfrom acting  in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
\nPublic\torder.\t A  preventive\taction\tpostulates  that  if
\npreventive step\t is  not  taken\t the  person  sought  to  be
\nprevented may  indulge into  an activity  prejudicial to the
\nmaintenance of\tpublic order.  In other\t words,\t unless\t the
\nactivity is  interdicted by a preventive detention order the
\nactivity which\tis being  indulged  into  is  likely  to  be
\nrepeated. This\tis the\tpostulate of  the section.  And this
\nindubitably transpires\tfrom the language employed in sub-s.
\n(2) which  says that  the detention order can be made with a
\nview to\t preventing the\t person sought\tto be  detained from
\nacting in  any manner  prejudicial  to\tthe  maintenance  of
\npublic order.  Now, if it is shown that the man sought to be
\nprevented by  a\t preventive  order  is\talready\t effectively
\nprevented, the power under sub-s. (2) of s. 3, if exercised,
\nwould imply  that one  who is already prevented is sought to
\nbe further  prevented  which  is  not  the  mandate  of\t the
\nsection,  and\twould  appear\ttautologous.  An  order\t for
\npreventive detention  is made on the subjective satisfaction
\nof the\tdetaining authority.  The detaining authority before
\nexercising the power of preventive detention would take into
\nconsideration the  past conduct or antecedent history of the
\nperson and  as a matter of fact it is largely from the prior
\nevents showing\tthe tendencies or inclinations of a man that
\nan inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the
\nfuture to  act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of
\npublic\torder.\t If  the   subjective  satisfaction  of\t the
\ndetaining authority  leads to  this conclusion it can put an
\nend to the activity by making, a preventive detention order.
\n(see Ujagar  Singh v.  State of\t Punjab, and  Jagir Singh<\/a> v.
\nState of Punjab).(1) Now, if the man is already detained can
\na detaining  authority be  said to  have  been\tsubjectively
\nsatisfied that\ta preventive  detention order  be made\t? In
\nRameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan &<\/a>
\n589<\/span>
\nAnr.(1) this  Court held  that as an abstract proposition of
\nlaw the\t detention order  can be made in respect of a person
\nwho is\talready detained.  But having  said this,  the Court
\nproceeded to observe as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “As an  abstract proposition of law, there may not
\n     be any  doubt that\t s. 3  (1) (a) does not preclude the
\n     authority from  passing an order of detention against a
\n     person whilst  he is  in detention\t or in jail, but the
\n     relevant facts  in connection  with the  making of\t the
\n     order may\tdiffer and that may make a difference in the
\n     application of the principle that a detention order can
\n     be passed\tagainst a person in jail. Take for instance,
\n     a case  where a  person has  been sentenced to rigorous
\n     imprisonment for  ten years.  It  cannot  be  seriously
\n     suggested that  soon after the sentence of imprisonment
\n     is pronounced  on the  person, the\t detaining authority
\n     can make  an order\t directing the detention of the said
\n     person after he is released from jail at the end of the
\n     period of\tthe sentence imposed on him. In dealing with
\n     this question,  again the consideration of proximity of
\n     time will\tnot be\tirrelevant. On\tthe other hand, if a
\n     person who is undergoing imprisonment, for a very short
\n     period, say  for a\t month or two or so, and it is known
\n     that he  would soon  be released  from jail,  it may be
\n     possible for  the authority  to consider the antecedent
\n     history of\t the said  person  and\tdecide\twhether\t the
\n     detention of  the said  person would be necessary after
\n     he is  released from  jail and if the authority is bona
\n     fide satisfied that such detention is necessary, he can
\n     make a  valid order  of detention a few days before the
\n     person is likely to be released. The antecedent history
\n     and the  past conduct  on which  the order of detention
\n     would be  based would,  in such a case, be proximate in
\n     point of time and would have a rational connection with
\n     the  conclusion   drawn  by   the\tauthority  that\t the
\n     detention of the person after his release is necessary.
\n     It may not be easy to discover such rational connection
\n     between the  antecedent history  of the  person who has
\n     been sentenced  to ten  years rigorous imprisonment and
\n     the view  that his detention should be ordered after he
\n     is released  after running\t the whole  of his sentence.
\n     Therefore, we are satisfied that the question as
\n590<\/span>
\n     to whether\t an order of detention can be passed against
\n     a person  who is  in detention  or in jail, will always
\n     have to  be determined  in the  circumstances  of\teach
\n     case”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
One can\t envisage a  hypothetical case\twhere  a  preventive
\norder may  have to be made against a person already confined
\nto jail or detained. But in such a situation as held by this
\nCourt it  must be  present to  the  mind  of  the  detaining
\nauthority that\tkeeping in  view the fact that the person is
\nalready detained  a  preventive\t detention  order  is  still
\nnecessary. The\tsubjective  satisfaction  of  the  detaining
\nauthority must\tcomprehend the\tvery fact  that\t the  person
\nsought to  be detained is already in jail or under detention
\nand yet\t a  preventive\tdetention  order  is  a,  compelling
\nnecessity. If the subjective satisfaction is reached without
\nthe awareness of this very relevant fact the detention order
\nis likely  to be  vitiated. But\t as stated  by this Court it
\nwill depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
     The view herein finds further support from the decision
\nof this\t Court in Vijay Kumar v. State of J & K and Ors.,<\/a>(1)
\nwherein this Court recently held as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Preventive detention\t is resorted  to, to  thwart
\n     future action. If the detenu is already in jail charged
\n     with a  serious offence,  he is  thereby prevented from
\n     acting in\ta manner  prejudicial to the security of the
\n     State. Maybe, in a given case there yet may be the need
\n     to order  preventive detention  of a  person already in
\n     jail. But\tin such\t a situation the detaining authority
\n     must disclose  awareness of  the fact  that the  person
\n     against whom  an order of preventive detention is being
\n     made is  to the  knowledge of  the authority already in
\n     jail  and\tyet  for  compelling  reasons  a  preventive
\n     detention order  needs to\tbe made. There is nothing to
\n     indicate the  awareness of the detaining authority that
\n     detenu was\t already in  jail and yet the impugned order
\n     is required  to be\t made. This, in our opinion, clearly
\n     exhibits non-application  of mind\tand would  result in
\n     invalidation of the order.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This leads\t us to\tthe second  limb of  the submission.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Conceding that\tin a given case a preventive detention order
\nis required
\n591<\/span>
\nto be  made even  against a person who is already in jail or
\nunder detention\t and that  the detaining authority shows its
\nawareness of the fact situation and yet passes the detention
\norder, the  detention order must show on the face of it that
\nthe  detaining\t authority  was\t  aware\t of  the  situation.
\nOtherwise the detention order would suffer from vice of non-
\napplication of\tthe mind.  The awareness must be of the fact
\nthat the  person against  whom the  detention order is being
\nmade is\t already under\tdetention or  in jail  in respect of
\nsome offence.  This would  show that  such a person is not a
\nfree person  to indulge into a prejudicial activity which is
\nrequired to  be prevented  by a\t detention order.  And\tthis
\nawareness must\tfind its place either in the detention order
\nor in  the affidavit  justifying the  detention\t order\twhen
\nchallenged. In\tthe absence  of it, it would appear that the
\ndetaining authority  was not  even aware  of this vital fact
\nand mechanically  proceeded to\tpass the  order which  would
\nunmistakably indicate that there was non-application of mind
\nto  the\t relevant  facts  and  any  order  of  such  serious
\nconsequence when  mechanically passed without application of
\nmind is liable to be set aside as invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     Turning to\t the facts  of this case the detention order
\nrefers to  Biru\t Mahato\t son  of  Mohan\t Mahato\t of  Village
\nJamdiha, P.S.  Bagmara, Distt.\tDhanbad. There is not even a
\nwhimper of  the detenu\tbeing in jail for nearly three weeks
\nprior to the date on which the detention order was made.\n<\/p>\n
     The detenu\t is referred  to as  one who is staying at a
\ncertain place  and is  a free  person.\tAssuming  that\tthis
\ninference from\tthe mere  description of  the detenu  in the
\ndetention  order   is\timpermissible\tthe   affidavit\t  is
\nconspicuously silent  on this point. Not a word is said that
\nthe detaining  authority was  aware of\tthe  fact  that\t the
\ndetenu was  already in\tjail and  yet it became a compelling
\nnecessity  to  pass  the  detention  order.  Therefore,\t the
\nsubjective satisfaction\t arrived at clearly discloses a non-
\napplication of\tmind to\t the relevant facts and the order is
\nvitiated.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. U.P.  Singh, learned  counsel for  the detenu urged
\nthat this  Court should\t not  take  into  consideration\t the
\naffidavit  filed   by  Dr.  J.S.  Brara\t on  behalf  of\t the
\nrespondent. Dr. J. S. Barara, describing himself as District
\nMagistrate, Dhanbad, has made the affidavit as if he was the
\ndetaining authority.  When this\t statement was challenged on
\nbehalf of the detenu, Mr. Goburdhan, learned
\n592<\/span>
\ncounsel for  the respondent  went to  the extreme  length of
\nasserting that\tMr. Brara  was the  detaining authority.  At
\nthat stage  Mr. U.  P. Singh, learned counsel for the detenu
\nproduced the  original order of detention signed by one Shri
\nD. Nand\t Kumar as District Magistrate. This was shown to Mr.
\nGoburdhan and  he was  unable to sustain his submission that
\nMr. Brara  who has  filed the  affidavit was  the  detaining
\nauthority. In  fact, at one stage we were inclined to take a
\nvery serious  view of the conduct of Mr. Brara in making the
\naffidavit as  if he is the detaining authority. In para 1 he
\nhas described  himself\tas  District  Magistrate  being\t the
\ndetaining authority of the petitioner which statement is not
\nborne out  by the  record. He may be the holder of office of
\nDistrict Magistrate. But when the subjective satisfaction of
\nholder of office is put in issue the mere occupant of office
\ncannot arrogate\t to substitute\this subjective satisfaction.
\nHe may\tspeak from the record but that is not the case here.
\nTherefore, the\taffidavit of Mr. Brara has to be ignored and
\none must  reach the conclusion that the averment made by the
\ndetenu have remained uncontroverted.\n<\/p>\n
     For these\treasons we  have quashed  and set  aside the
\norder of detention.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\tAppeal and Petition allowed.\n593<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1539, 1983 SCR (1) 584 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: BIRU MAHATO Vs. RESPONDENT: DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/10\/1982 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. MISRA, R.B. (J) CITATION: 1982 AIR 1539 1983 SCR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBiru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\",\"name\":\"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982","datePublished":"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982"},"wordCount":2396,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982","name":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-31T04:42:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/biru-mahato-vs-district-magistrate-dhanbad-on-15-october-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Biru Mahato vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 15 October, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214625","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}