DIGVIJAYSINHJI HAMIRSINHJI Vs. H K OZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing the order of the District Magistrate Jamnagar dated April 7 1964 directing the detention of the petitioner under sec. 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 and the order of the State Government dated June 2 1964 confirming the same and for a direction for the release of the petitioner from detention at present in the Central Jail at Rajkot.

(2.) At the material time the petitioner was the Sarpanch of the gram panchayat of village Kharedi and had been so acting ever since 1956 having been elected as such from time to time. He was also the chairman of the Kharedi Multi-purpose Co-operative Society and an elected member of the Taluka Kalawad Panchayat as also a member of the District Panchayat Jamnagar District. As a member of the Swatantra Party he contested during the last general elections as a candidate of that party.

(3.) By his order dated April 7 1964 the District Magistrate directed that the petitioner be detained on being satisfied with respect to him that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him. By another order of the same date he directed that the petitioner should be detained in the District Prison Jamnagar and should for the purpose of the conditions of Detention Order 1951 be treated as Class II prisoner. On that date the District Magistrate also communicated to the petitioner the grounds of detention as required by section 7 of the Act. By a letter dated April 21 1964 the District Magistrate informed the petitioner that the associates of petitioner mentioned in sub-para 8(b) of para 2 of the said grounds were the five persons whose names were set out therein. On April 23 1964 the petitioner asked for further particulars to enable him to make his representation effectively. The District Magistrate however by his reply dated April 26 1964 declined to give any further particulars. On April 27 1964 the petitioner made his representation to the State Government. It appears that the State Government placed the grounds of detention as also the petitioners representation before the Advisory Board as required by section 9 and on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board confirmed the order of the District Magistrate being satisfied as averred in the affidavit of the Under Secretary Home & Civil Supplies Department (Special) that there were sufficient grounds for the District Magistrate to pass the order.