IN RE: NARAHARI BALAJI PARKHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner, Narahari Balaji Parkhi, belongs to the Central Provinces. He used to have some business connections with the firm at Vijayawada. He was arrested at 5 -30 p.m. on 4th February, 1948, at Vijayawada railway station when he was leaving for Nagpur. An order of detention was actually passed against him on 5th February, 1948, by the District Magistrate of Kistna purporting to be under Section 15 of Act I of 1947. On the 6th February, 1948, the District Magistrate intimated to the Government the fact of the issue of the order of detention. The Provincial Government communicated to the detenu the following grounds of detention on the 7th April, 1948:

(2.) IT is argued by Mr. Sanjiva Kamath that there was failure on the part of both the District Magistrate and the Government in the matter of complying with the mandatory requirements of the Act. Under Section 2(1)(a), the Provincial Government, if satisfied with respect to any particular person that he is acting or about to. act in any manner prejudicial to the public safety, or the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing him, it is necessary so to do, may make an order that he be detained. This power was delegated under Section 15 of the Act by the Provincial Government to District Magistrates and the Commissioner of Police in their respective jurisdictions (vide G.O. Ms. No. 907 Public (General E) dated 21st March 1947). Under Sub -section (2) of Section 2, when any order is made by the District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police under Section 15,

(3.) THE only ground, if it can be called a ground, that is given in the communication of the Provincial Government is that the detenu is a member of the R.S.S.S., which has been banned and that he was holding the important post of the Provincial organiser in the Andhra branch. Under Sub -section (1) of Section 3, the Provincial Government should communicate to the person concerned not only the grounds on which the order has been made against him, but also such other particulars as are, in their opinion, sufficient to enable him to make, if he wishes, a representation against the order. It is therefore essential, in my view, that the communication of the Government to the detenu should contain the grounds of the order as also particulars of such a nature as would serve the prescribed purpose of enabling the detenu to make a representation as to why he should not be kept under detention. The present communication does not appear to me to satisfy that requirement in any manner whatsoever. It does not state whether he continues to be a member of the organisation even after it was banned on the 4th February 1948, and whether he holds the post of Provincial Organiser after that crucial date. It does not, therefore, appear from the communication that there were any acts committed or about to be committed by the detenu after the organisation was declared to be unlawful from which the Provincial Government was entitled to make the deduction that his being at large would be prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by a friend of the petitioner it is stated that the petitioner had severed his connection with the organisation in February, 1947, and had settled down at Nagpur confining his sole attention to his business, viz., the promotion of the business of the Andhra Engineering Co., at Nagpur.