1992 INSC 0258
                                                     T. N. Mathur

                                                           Vs

                                               State of Uttar Pradesh

                                   Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1820 of 1990

                                    (M. N. Venkatachaliah, R. C. Pathak JJ)

                                                      06.04.1992

                                                        ORDER

1. This petition alleges - and indeed the counter-affidavit substantially confirms these allegations - a
very unsatisfactory state in the matter of housing of persons arrested and detained under Section 279
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 for defaults in the repayment of loans
to Government. It would appear that loans borrowed from the State or its agencies are recoverable
as if they were arrers of land revenue, and one of the modes of such coercive recovery is the arrest
and detention of such defaulters.

2. This case also raises certain issues as to the antecedent conditions to be satisfied before the power
of arrest and detention could be invoked and exercised under Section 279. On the analogous
provisions of Section 51 read with Rule 37 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court
has laid down the conditions for the exercise of such a drastic power (see : Jolly George Varghese v.
Bank of Cochin [(1980) 2 SCC 360 : (1980) 2 SCR 913]).

3. The petition raises the immediate problems of the conditions of the lock-up at a place called
Unnao in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that the lock-up is wholly unhygienic, insanitary
and unfit for human habitation. We have a report of the District Magistrate, which confirms that the
lock-up is of the size of 11.5 x 8 feet, and that a small latrine of 6" x 11" attached to it is separated
only by a dwarf-wall. There are no other basic facilities such as platform for sleeping, chairs or fan
etc. The petitioner, who has brought this public interest litigation, states that at times 30 to 35
persons are huddled into this cell. This is disputed. But it is virtually undisputed that on occasions 7
persons were housed in it. The minimal civilised conditions required to be maintained for such
detentions are not satisfied as the facts disclosed indicate that the extant conditions are wholly
unsatisfactory.

4. We, therefore, issue an interim direction to the State of U.P. that wherever such detentions are
resorted to, the persons detained must be housed in a lock-up which will provide at least 40 sq. ft.
per person with minimal facilities of some furniture such as a cot for each of the detained persons
and supply of potable water. Having regard to the climatic conditions of the place, the lock-up
should provide for an electric fan. There must be hygienic arrangements for toilet. The State of U.P.
shall ensure the satisfaction of these conditions wherever such arrests and detentions are resorted to.

5. The matter shall be listed for further hearing on the procedural requirements for the exercise of
the power and the conditions of such detention.

6. The matter shall be listed on April 22, 1992. In the meanwhile, the State of U.P. shall file a
detailed counter-affidavit.
Court Master

</html