SANGAPPA MALLAPPA KODLI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two sets of Petitioners before us. They have been ordered to be detained under the Preventive Detention Act. It is not disputed before us that with regard to the first set of Petitioners, the order of confirmation which is required to be made under Section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act was not made immediately after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board made under Section 10 of the said Act, nor was it made within three months from the date of detention. With regard to the second group of Petitioners, it is admitted by both sides that the order of confirmation was made within three months from the date of detention.

(2.) With regard to the first set of Petitioners, several grounds were taken in support of their petitions. The first ground is that the order of confirmation made by the Government under Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Preventive Detention Act should have been made within a period, of three months from the date of detention. It should he mentioned that the said order of detention was made on 22-12-1956 and the grounds thereof were furnished to the Petitioners on 26-12-1956. The detention took place on 24th and 25th December 1956. The reference to the Advisory Board was made on 22-1-1957. The Advisory Board made its report on 11-2-1957. The Government confirmed the detention order on 16-4-1957. It appears from these dates that the order of confirmation was made after the report was communicated to Government by Advisory Board but more than three months after the date of detention. It is, therefore, urged before us that the detention was illegal, inasmuch as the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act were not followed. In support of this contention reliance was plac-ed by the learned Advocate appearing for these Petitioners on Article 22 Clause (4) of the Constitution wherein it is stated that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless an Advisory Board has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention. Reliance was also placed on Umedsingh Narubha v. State, AIR 1953 Sau 51(A), Dhadhal Kanthad Valeg v. Saurashtra State, AIR 1953 Sau 138 (B) and Kaur Singh v. State, AIR 1952 Pepsu 134 (G). wherein it has been held that the order of confirmation should be made within three months from the date of detention.

(3.) The second ground urged by the first set of petitioners is that the grounds supplied were vague and could not form the basis of an order under the Preventive Detention Act.