BAL DIWAKAR HANS Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Bal Diwakar Hans was arrested on 2nd December, 1966, pursuant to an order of detention made by the District Magistrate, Delhi, on 30th November, 1966, under Section 3 (i) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended, (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The grounds on which the detention of the petitioner has be en ordered are that his activities were highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order in the Union Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his counsel Shri R. P. Bansal has raised the following contentions on his behalf : (i) that no order of detention was served upon the petitioner either citing the preamble or the conclusion of facts as required under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act at the time when he was arrested and that it was only after a week or so of his arrest that the petitioner came to know that his detention had been made under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, when a copy of the grounds of the detention was supplied to him; (ii) that the grounds of detention are vague and indefinite as such they are violative of Article 22 (6) of the Constitution of India; (iii) that the grounds have no connection with the maintenance of public order and lastly (iv) that no report was made by the Detaining authority to the State Government as required by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act ; nor was the approval of the State Government obtained. He has also contended that it was the duty of the State Government to have reported the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order of detention had been made and that even this requirement of sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act has not been complied with. On behalf of the State, an affidavit dated the 5th January, 1967, has been filed by Shri B. N. Tandon, District Magistrate, Delhi, who has controverted the facts and grounds on which the order of detention made by him has been challenged by the petitioner and I have also heard Shri K. L. Sharma, learned Counsel for the State at great length.

(2.) . It is apparent from the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, Delhi, that there is no substance in any of the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel except the objection raised on the score of vagueness and indefiniteness of the grounds on which the order of detention has been made. The affidavit of the District Magistrate and the attested copy of the report made by him to the State Government marked as Annexure 'A' filed therewith clearly show that a copy of the order of detention made by him on 30th November, 1966, along with a copy of the note received from S. P., C. I. D. (S. B) were forwarded to the Lt. Governor through his Secretary on the same day and his approval was obtained on 3rd December, 1966. The affidavit also shows that the copies of the warrant of detention and the order of detention were duly served on the petitioner immediately after his arrest and that he had affixed his signatures on the office copies of the warrant of detention and the order of detention on 2nd December, 1966, in token of his having received the same. As regards the objection that the State Government had not reported the fact of the petitioner's detention to the Central Government as required by sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act, I find that no such objection has been taken in the petition at all. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine that contention in this case.

(3.) . The petitioners' s contention with regard to the vagueness of the grounds on which his detention has been ordered, however, needs serious consideration. There is no doubt that out of eight grounds, there are five atleast to which no objection could reasonably be taken by the petitioner's counsel. These grounds are neither vague nor indefinite nor can it be said that they are irrelevant to the matters which fall to be considered under sub-section (i) (a) (ii) of Section 3 of the Act. The attack was, therefore, largely confined to grounds (i), (vii) and (viii) of the grounds of detention served on the petitioner which are reproduced below :