MUTHURAMALINGA THEVAR Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28-9-1957 the petitioner was taken into custody for preventive detention and he was served with an order passed by the Collector of Ramanathapuram District who was the Additional District Magistrate ex-officio, under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act. 4 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). That order of detention was approved of by the Government of Madras on 5-10-1957 under Section 3 (3) of the Act. Meanwhile in compliance with the requirements of Section 7 (1) of the Act, the grounds on which the order of detention was passed were set out in the memorandum dated 28-9-1957, and this was served on the petitioner on 30-9-1957. On 17-10-1957 the petitioner's case was referred to the Advisory Board under 8. 9 of the Act, and when the petitioner submitted his written representations on 24-10-1957 those papers also were forwarded to the Advisory Board. The petitioner exercised his right to be heard in person, and the Advisory Board heard him on 16-11-1957. On 20-11-1957, the Advisory Board reported its opinion to the Government which ran: The Advisory Board is unanimously of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of Sri U. Muthuramalinga Thevar, M. P. The order of detention was confirmed by the Government on 22-111957 in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 11 (1) of the Act. On 21-1-1958 the petitioner presented an application to this Court for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus, wherein he challenged the validity of his detention ordered under the provisions of the Act. The petition was supported by an affidavit sworn to by C. Danaraj. A rule nisi was ordered to issue on 24-1-1958. The Advocate General appeared on behalf of the State, the first respondent, and showed cause against the confirmation of the rule nisi.

(2.) THE validity of the detention was challenged by Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, learned Counsel for the petitioner on two grounds (1) the exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Government was mala fide, and (2) the facts set out in the ground numbered paragraph l (iii) in the grounds of detention were factually incorrect and false.

(3.) PARAGRAPH l (iii) of the Grounds of Detention was: It is a fact and it has also been Sri The-var's claim that the Maravars of Mudukulathur taluk and adjoining areas are devoted to him and completely amenable to his directions. It is particularly significant, therefore, that Sri Thevar has made no appeal to his followers to desist from violent acts but has actually been instigating these attacks against Harijans while remaining in the background. . . . The specific averment in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was: