9911796707
TMI Blog1953 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, and the order expressly directed the detention of the petitioner in the custody of the Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur, under subclauses (ii) and (iii) of clause (a) of section 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended by later Acts. On the 7th of January following the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenue in accordance with the provision of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act and the grounds, it appears, were of a two-fold character, falling respectively under the two categories contemplated by sub-clause (ii) and sub- clause (iii) of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. In the first paragraph of the communication it is stated that the detenue in course of speeche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e second paragraph of this communication runs as follows : The detenue may please be informed that the Advisory Board did not uphold his detention under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act. Government have therefore revoked his detention undeR this sub-clause. The petitioner has now come up before us with an application under article 32 of the Constitution and Mr. Veda Vyas, who appeared in support of the petition, has challenged the legality of the detention order made against his client substantially on two grounds. It is argued in the first place that from the grounds served upon the petitioner under section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, it appears clear th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue, the test being whether they are sufficient to enable the' detenu to make an effective representation; but we are not satisfied that the particulars supplied to the detenu in the present case are really inadequate and fall short of the constitutional requirement. We do not think, therefore, that there is any substance in this contention. The first contention raised by the learned counsel raises,however, a somewhat important point which requires careful consideration. It has been repeatedly held by this court that the power to issue a detention order under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act 5-93 S. C. India/59 depends entirely upon the satisfaction of the appropriate authority specified in that section. The sufficiency of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the executive authority which is against the legislative policy underlying the statute. In such cases, we think, the position would be the same as if one of these two grounds was irrelevant for the purpose of the Act or was wholly illusory and this would vitiate the detention order as a whole. Principle, which was order as a whole. This principle, which was recognised by the Federal Court in the case of Keshav Talpade v. The Kingb Emperor ([1943] F.C.R 88), seems to us to be quite sound and applicable to the facts of this case. ([1951] S.C.R. 167) Vide state of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Vaidya. We desire to point out that, the order which the Government purported to make in this caseunder section 11 of the Preventive Detention Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
