9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (1) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctuous because the appellant, S. V. Parulekar, has died. Mr. R. K. Garg appears on behalf of the appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1964. It is common ground that the points arising in all the appeals are common, and in order to appreciate the points, it would be sufficient if the facts in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 1964, relevant to the arguments addressed to us, are only given. The relevant facts given in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra are as follows: 2. With reference to paragraph 1 of the said Petition I say that the petitioner was detained under order dated the 7th November 1962 issued by the District Magistrate, Thana, under the Preventive Detention Act 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the public safety and maintenance of public order. The last two orders of cancellation and detention dated the 3rd February 1964 are attached to the said petition as Annexures A and B, respectively. 3. With reference to paragraph 2 of the said petition I say that what is stated therein is generally correct. I further say that the petitioner is a Communist belonging to the Ranadive Group, which maintains that China has not committed any aggression on India and which actively propagates that view. The High Court of Bombay held that the detention of the appellant from May 1963 to February 1964 was illegal but the order of detention passed on February 3, 1964 was legal, and accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Act, provides the only means by which the Governor can relieve himself of a strictly personal function. Their Lordships would also add on this contention that sub-s. 5 of s. 2 provides a means of delegation in the strict sense of the word, namely, a transfer of the power or duty to the officer or authority defined in the sub-section, with a corresponding divestiture of the Governor of any responsibility in the matter, whereas under r. 49, sub-s.1, of the Act of 1935 the Governor remains responsible for the action of his subordinates taken in his name. We are unable to agree with Mr. Garg that the Privy Council laid down that the Governor was divested of its power of passing an order when the above notification was issued. It see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be passed. He further elaborates his point by saying that once one Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to detain a person under one head, say for the maintenance of public order' there is no question of another satisfaction by another Minister that it is necessary to detain that very person, say for the reason of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India. He says that as soon as the first Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to detain a person for reasons of maintenance of public order, no power remains to consider other reasons. We are unable to accept the above line of reasoning. We do not see any difficulty in two Ministers successively being satisfied that it is necessary to detain a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his release merely on the ground that at some prior stage there was no valid cause for detention. The question is not whether the later order validates the earlier detention but whether in the face of the later order the court can direct the release of the petitioner. The mere fact that the detention order is passed during the pendency of habeas corpus proceedings cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that the order is vitiated by malice in law. It depends on the circumstances of the case. The detenu would have to prove not only that the detention order has been passed during the pendency of habeas corpus proceedings but also that there are other facts showing malice. Mr. Garg has not been able to point out any other facts in this ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of detention dated February 3, 1964. In Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1964, the appellant P.P. Sanzgiri, adopted the arguments of Mr. Garg and further urged that he had been validly detained by order of the District Magistrate dated November 11, 1962, and there had been no proper cancellation of this order. But he says that this order was bad because there was no confirmation of it. As pointed out above, we are not concerned with the previous orders of detention because the appellant is detailed now under the order dated February 3, 1964, and we need not go into the point. We may mention that in three appeals, Criminal Appeal No. 225/64, Criminal Appeal No. 226/64 and Criminal Appeal No. 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
