ANANT BABURAO SAWANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 84 applications, which have been filed by the detenus under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure code and Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, for a writ of habeas corpus, raise common questions of fact and law and can, therefore, be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) FOR deciding the material points raised in these applications, a few facts, which are, more or less, common with variations of dates and other minor details which do not affect the decision of the case, may be outlined as follows:

(3.) THE general pattern of the facts in all these cases is as follows: On 29th December 1964, orders of detention were passed by the Commissioner of Police against some of the detenus under Rule 30 (1) (b) of of Defence of India Rules, 1962, framed by virtue of Section 3 of the Defence of India Act, 1962. In some cases, these orders were passed on 30th December 1964. In respect of the applicants in Criminal Applications Nos. 465 to 481 of 1965, the orders of detentions were passed by the District Magistrate, Thana, on 29th December 1964. It can be stated in a general way that all the applicants had made applications under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code and Art. 226 of the constitution, for writs of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the orders of detentions passed against them by the various authorities. It may be mentioned that District Magistrate cancelled the orders of detention passed by him against detenus in Criminal Applications Nos. 465 to 481 of 1965, on 20th February 1965 and passed fresh orders of detention on the same day. The orders of detention dated 29th December 1964, had been challenged in the High Court on the ground that the District Magistrate had failed to make report forthwith as required by Rule 30-A. That seems to be reason why the orders dated 29th December 1964, were cancelled and fresh orders of detention passed on 20th February 1965. the orders of detention dated 20th February 1965, also were challenged in the High Court. That means that on the crucial dates. viz. , 10th March 1965 and 11th March 1965, when the Central Government passed orders of detention in all the cases, habeas corpus applications were pending in the High Court. these hebeas corpus applications were fixed for hearing in the High Court on 22nd March 1965. In the meantime, while the applications were pending before the High court and were to come up for hearing on 22nd March 1965, the Central Government passed order of detention against all the applicants; orders against some were pased on 10th March 1965 and against others on the 11th March 1965. The hearing which was scheduled to take place on 22nd March 1965, came to be adjourned to 29th March 1965. On that date all the applications came to be dismissed as fruitless on the ground that the detenus were under detention by the orders of the Central Government passed on the 10th and the 11th. The State Government cancelled the orders of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police on 30th December 1964 and by the District Magistrate on 22nd February 1965. the orders of detention passed by the Union Government, were served on the detenus on 14th March 1965. what is pertinent to note is that the orders of detention which are now challenged in these applications have been passed by the Union Government either on the 10th of March 1965 or the 11th March 1965.