THIRUVADINATHA PILLAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTIRATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are filed on behalf of Sri. S. Thiruvadinatha Pillai and his younger brother Sri. S. Kolappa Pillai respectively who are described as partners carrying on business at Trivandrum as hardware merchants under the name and style of S.T.C. Thiruvadinatha Pillai and Brothers. The prayer in each petition is for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the second respondent who is the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Trivandrum, to set him at liberty. The first respondent is the District Magistrate of Trivandrum. Both the petitioners are under detention under the Preventive Detention Act, No. IV of 1950. The order directing such detention is alleged to have been passed under the Act by the first respondent, the District Magistrate of Trivandrum.

(2.) Various grounds are alleged in support of the petitions but in the view we are taking of one of these grounds it is not necessary to deal in detail with the other grounds.

(3.) The contention that appears to us to be well founded is that the detention cannot be supported since a copy of the order made by the District Magistrate directing the detention was not given to the petitioners in spite of their request for the same. To appreciate the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioners by their learned counsel in respect of this question, it is necessary to set forth briefly the relevant provisions of the Preventive Detention Act and the steps taken in the present case for detaining the petitioners. Provision is made in S.3 of the Act entitling the Central Government or the Government of a State to make an order directing that a person who comes within the category of those described in the section shall be detained. One of the grounds for such detention is that the party concerned should be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. That is the clause under which the petitioners have been ordered to be detained. The power to direct detention for this reason is conferred by the Act also on District Magistrates, Sub Divisional Magistrates and in Presidency towns on the Commissioners of police. The District Magistrate of Trivandrum has in the present case acted in the exercise of the power conferred upon him by this provision. According to sub-s. 3 of S.3 when any such order is made by a competent authority subordinate to the Government he shall forthwith report the fact to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the necessity for the order. The next relevant section for purposes of these petitions is S.7 which requires that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order where such order has been made by ............................ an officer subordinate there to the State Government. Sub-s. 2 lays down that nothing in sub-s. (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against public interests to disclose.