BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Srikrishan Sharma, Shri Duli Chand and Shri Shyam Bihari Lal, who will be hereinafter referred to as the detenues, are partners of the firm, M/s Delhi Rajkot Enamel Works. They were detained under separate orders of the District Magistrate, Delhi, dated 22-10-1974 passed under section 3 (il) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as the MISA) and the ground of detention on the basis of which they had been detained were served upon them as required under section 8 (1) of the MISA. The detenues filed petitions in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution chellenging the validity of the detention orders passed against them. These petitions were registered as Cr.W. Nos. 59, 60 and 61 of 1974. By a common judgment in these cases dated December 11, 1974, a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us, namely, Ansari, J; was member, quashed the orders of detention passed against the detenues and directed their release. In pursuance of the said judgment of this Court, the detenues were released on the same date. Subsequently, the Parliament passed the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which received the assent of the President of India on 13-12-1974. The Act came in to force from 19-12-1974. By virtue of section 14 of the Act, the amendments which had been introduced in the MISA by Ordinance No. 11 of 1974 were repealed. Fresh orders were passed by the Central Government on 24-2-1975 under section 3(1) of the Act directing the detention of the detenues in order to prevent them from abetting the smuggling out of India of goods, namely, silver and by virtue of the said orders, the detenues were again arrested and detained. Thereafter, orders mentioning the grounds of detention were also served upon them. The present petitions have been filed on behalf of the detenues chellenging the validity of the detention orders passed against the detenues.

(2.) In the write petitions, the detention orders passed against the detenues have been challenged on various grounds. But Mr. Frank Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioners, has challenged the validity of the detention orders on the following grounds, namely :-

(3.) Before proceeding to consider the first contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to state a few facts. The earlier orders of detention passed against the detenues under the MISA were based upon the following three main grounds :-