SHRI RAM CHAUHAN Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these three applications, under Article 32, for writs of habeas corpus, the applicants challenge the orders of detention, dated March 1, 1969, passed against them by the Lieut. Governor of Delhi, under Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (Act IV of 1950) hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) In view of the common questions raised, all these three writ petitions are being dealt with together, and we shall briefly refer to the facts in each case. In M P. No. 170 of 1969, the petitioner claims to have been arrested on November 15, 1968, under a case registered as F.I.R. No. 126 of 1948, dated November 2, 1968, on the file of the Police Station, Mehrauli. The petitioner avers that he has been discharged by the Magistrate on March 3, 1969, nevertheless he has been kept in detention illegally. The Officer on Special Duty, Home, Delgi Administration, in the counter affidavit dated March 1, 1969, has stated that the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the order, dated March 1, 1969 of the Lieut, Governor, Delhi, passed under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act and the said detention order was passed with a view to safeguarding the security of the State. It is further stated that the petitioner was a resident of "Village Dudiana Khurd, District Hoshiarpur and at the time of issuing of the order of detention he was working as a Lower Division Clerk in the Central Reserve Police, Diwan Kothi, Jammu & Kashmir. In the further affidavit, filed in this Court after rule nisi was issued by this Court on July 28, 1969 it has been stated on behalf of the respondent as follows : The petitioner was employed in the Military Intelligence Directorate as Havildar Clerk. It came to the notice of the authorities that he used to meet the officials of the Pakistan High Commission and that he supplied certain maps belonging to the military authorities which were relevant from strategic point of view, after receiving remuneration from the Pakistan Officials. On these allegations a First Information Report was ledged with the Police Station, Mehrauli and registered as F.I.R. 126 of 1968- The petitioner was produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on Nov. 25,1968 on which date he made a confessional statement. These materials were placed before the Lieut. Governor for considering the necessary action to be taken against the petitioner. The Lieut Governor was satisfied that the detention of the petitioner was necessary since his remaining at large would be against the security of the state and, accordingly, passed the order of detention on March 1, 1969 under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. In pursuance of this order the petitioner was detained on March 3, 1969 The grounds of detention dated March 6, 1969 were served on the petitioner on March 7, 1969 within the period provided under Section 7 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board under Section 9, on March 12, 1969. The Petitioner, on his own request, appeared before the Advisory Board on April 7, 1969. On April 19, 1969 the Advisory Board found that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The Lieut Governor by his order dated May 6, 1969 confirmed the order of detention.

(3.) The order of detention shows that the Lieut Governor was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to make an order that the petitioner be detained and, in consequence, an order was passed under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Act. In the grounds of detention served on the petitioner, reference is made to the petitioner, as Havildar Clerk in the Directorate of Military intelligence, Army Headquarters, New Delhi having access to the defence secrete vital to the safety and security of the State, visiting the mission of a foreign power at New Delhi in or about July/August 1967 and agreeing to supply defence secrets to them. Reference is also made to the petitioner having showed his identity cards and movement order to the agents of the foreign power to convince the latter that he was in a position to supply them defence secrets the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to the safety and security of India and useful to the enemy. It is further stated that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi is satisfied, from the petitioners said activities that he is likely to act further in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India and security and safety of India and therefore the order of detention is made to prevent him from so acting. There is a further statement that the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi considers it against the public interest to disclose to the petitioner facts other than those given in the grounds served on him.