(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Banna Lal challenges the validity of the order of the State Government dated 1912-1974 directing him to be detained under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 Annexure 9 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner alleges that on 1st October 1974 he was detained in pursuance of an order of the District Magistrate passed under the provision of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 as amended by Ordinance II of 1974 issued on 17-9-1974. Subsequently, the grounds for his detention as contemplated by Section 8 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act were communicated to him on 410-1974. The petitioner then filed a Habeas Corpus Petn. No. 6181 of 1974 before this Court and challenged the validity of his detention on a number of grounds. That petition was heard by a Full Bench of this Court on 12-12-1974 and onwards. Ultimately it was listed for hearing on 19-12-1974. On that date, the learned Advocate-General informed the Court that a new Act known as Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 had come into force and the Ordinance No. II of 1974 stood repealed, with the result, that the existing detention order passed against the petitioner, under Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, had lapsed. In these circumstances, the Full Bench, without going into the merits of various arguments made on behalf of the petitioner, directed that he be released from detention forthwith. Before the aforesaid order of the High Court could be complied with, the State Government made the impugned order directing the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 1974 Act) on 19th December, 1974 and served the same upon him at about 1. 30 P. M. While serving the detention order, the State of U. P. did not inform the petitioner about the grounds on which he was being detained. The petitioner therefore, apprehended that his detention had been continued on the same grounds on which he had been ordered to be detained under the provision of Section 3 (1) (c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition on 23-12-1974 and challenged the validity of the fresh detention order, inter alia on the following grounds:
(3.) HOWEVER, in the meantime, the President of India made an order under Article 359 (1) Of the Constitution, declaring that the right to move any court with respect to orders of detention which have already been made or which may hereafter be made under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act or with respect to any other action including the making of any declaration under Section 9 of the said Act which has already been or may hereafter be taken or omitted to be taken in respect of detention under such orders, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Clauses (4) and (5) read with Clauses (6) and (7) of Article 22 of the Constitution, and directed that all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the aforesaid rights with respect to orders of detention made under the said Act or any other action (including the making of any declaration under the said Section 9) taken or omitted to be taken in respect of detention under such orders, shall remain suspended for a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the order or for the period during which the proclamation of emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution expires earlier. The Government of U. P. also communicated to the petitioner the grounds for his detention, by its communication dated 23rd December, 1974. (Annexure 's-1' to the supplementary affidavit of Hem Chand Jain dated 29th December, 1974, and filed in Court on 2-1-1975 ).