SAMPAT PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On March 16, 1968 the petitioner was arrested and ordered to be detained under S. 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act 13 of 1964. On March 26, 1968, he was served with the grounds of detention. On May 3, 1968, the petitioner moved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court. The petition was rejected by this Court on October 10, 1968. In the meanwhile the order dated March 16, 1968, was revoked on September 16, 1968, and another order was served upon the petitioner on the same day. On September 24, 1968, he was served with the grounds of detention for the fresh order, and his case was referred to the Advisory Board on October 26, 1968. On October 30, 1968, the Advisory Board recommended that the petitioner be detained. The petitioner then moved this petition on November 11, 1968 for a writ of habeas corpus.

(2.) Two contentions in the nature of preliminary objections were raised in support of the petition. It was urged that (1) the petitioner was, in spite of a specific request, denied a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, and (2) that the Chief Minister who was in charge of the portfolio relating to preventive detention did not apply his mind to the case of the petitioner before making the order of detention. (An affidavit is filed by the Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir affirming that the petitioner made no request for production before the Board for a personal hearing. He has also affirmed that the Chief Minister did consider the case of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be detained in custody under the Preventive Detention Act.) In view of this affidavit, Counsel for the petitioner did not press the two preliminary contentions.

(3.) Counsel urged that the order of detention was invalid because (1) that the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Advisory Board till September 24, 1968 and on that account his detention was invalid, and he could not be continued in detention thereafter; (2) that in making the detention order the authorities acted mala fide; and (3) the grounds in support of the order were vague and indefinite.