1973 (12) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etitioner's detention was submitted to the Central Government. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on May 29, it was considered on June 1 and on the very next day the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The Board gave its decision on June 28 and the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on July 30. The communication in regard to the confirmation of the detention order was received by the petitioner on August 14. 2. The order of detention was passed under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The order is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of confirmation passed by the State Government was not communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable time. 4. It is not proper that the particulars furnished to the petitioner should have been accompanied by a mechanical recital that he was being detained on the grounds mentioned therein, even though the order is founded on a single ground. The detaining authority must apply its mind to individual cases and ought not to adopt a mechanical approach to matters involving personal freedom. But the mistake is not of so serious a nature as would vitiate the detention. In regard to the statement that the particulars furnished to the petitioner were considered separately and collectively we see no error because the particulars mention .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted an illegality vitiating the order of detention. 7. The fourth ground raises a question which is not within the jurisdiction of this Court because sufficiency of the evidence before the detaining authority is not a matter for the Courts to decide. The particulars furnished to the petitioner show that the facts within the knowledge of the detaining authority bear a rational connection with maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The order cannot therefore be said to have been passed on extraneous grounds. 8. On the last point it is not possible to hold that there was in the circumstances of the case an unfair delay in communicating to the petitioner the confirmation of the detention order by the State Govern .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X