N VENKAT RAMANI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner in W. P. No. 5527/75 was arrested on 25-6-1975 and detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (referred to in the judgment as MISA). Similarly the other petitioners in this petition and the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 5676 and 6125 of 1975 were also arrested on different dates which are not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition. The respondent, namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, revoked the orders of detention on 16-8-1975 and passed fresh detention orders on the same day. The petitioners and several other persons similarly placed as the petitioners filed a batch of writ petitions, W. P. 4679 of 1975 etc. questioning the validity of the orders of detention dated 16-8-1975. These petitions were heard by Kondaiah and Madhavarao, JJ. By their judgment dated 9-10-1975 (reported in 1976-1 Andh WR 194) they held that the orders of detention are invalid and quashed the orders and the petitioners among others were directed to be set at liberty forthwith in the Court itself. In those writ petitions several contentions were raised. The learned judges, however, dealt with only one of them, namely, that as the report to the State Government by the Central Government under Sub-section 3 of Section 3, of MISA was not sent and as the provision was mandatory, the orders of detention were invalid. Under the said provision when an order is made or approved by the State Government, the State Government shall within seven days report the fact to the Central Government together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in the opinion of the State Government have a bearing on the matter. In the cases before the learned Judges, a copy of the order of detention had been sent to the State Government by the Central Government and therefore it was contended there was compliance with Sub-section 3 of Section 3, at any rate, there was a substantial compliance with the provisions of that Section. This contention was rejected. The learned Judges held that what was sent was not a report within the meaning of Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Act.

(2.) The above order directing the petitioners to be set at liberty was passed by this Court on 9-10-1975. But immediately thereafter, on 10-10-1975 two orders were passed in each case. By the first order the detention order dated 16-8-1975 was revoked and by the second an order of detention was passed in which it was recited that with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and also with a view to effectively deal with the emergency in respect of which proclamations under Clause (1) of Article. 352 of the Constitution were issued on 3-12-1971 and 25-6-1975, the petitioner was directed to be detained under Section 3(ii)(a)(i) read with Section 16-A of the Act. The petitioners filed this writ petition contending that the order of the revocation and the fresh order of detention are invalid and illegal. Apart from the contentions on the merits that they had not committed any acts or were about to commit acts which justified their being-detained under the provisions of the MISA they contended that the first defendant had no power to pass a fresh order of detention, as such an order could be passed under Section 14(2) only when there was a revocation of a prior detention order: that as the High Court had quashed the prior order of detention dated 16-8-1975 there was no order in existence to be revoked and the purported order dated 10-10-1975 revoking the earlier order cannot be considered to be a valid order of revocation within the meaning of Section 14(1) of the Act. A similar contention had been raised in a batch of writ petitions, Nos. 5119 of 1975 etc. (Andh Pra) before Madhava Reddy and Punayya JJ. As there was difference of opinion between the two Judges on this question, the matter was referred to a third Judge, Sambasivarao, J. who took the view that the state or the detaining authority was not competent to make a fresh order of detention under Section 14(2) or any other provision of the MISA when the earlier order of detention was quashed by the High Court on the technical ground that the State Government had failed to submit a report as required by Section 16-A(7) read with Section 3(3) of the Act. When the present writ petitions came up for hearing before Chennakesav Reddy and Madhusudan Rao, JJ., the decision of Sambasiva Rao, J. was relied on by the petitioners. Their Lordships however felt that the cases should be decided by a larger Bench. After referring to the relevant provisions of MISA and the judgment of Madhava Reddy and Punnayya, JJ., and of Sambasiva Rao, J. and some judgment of the Supreme Court, they observed that there appeared to be obscurity of judicial authority on the true scope of Section 14(2) of MISA. Sri Kannabhiran, learned counsel for the petitioners also raised before them the contention that Section 16-A(9) of the Act was invalid and ultra virus. In the circumstances the learned Judges directed that the writ petitions in their entirety should be heard and decided by a larger Bench and also directed that notice should be given to the Advocate General in the matter. These writ petitions were accordingly posted before us.

(3.) The petitioner in W. P. No. 5448 of 1975 was arrested on 26-6-1975 at 5 a.m. and detained. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner on 30-6-1973 as required by Section 8 of the Act as it stood at that time. The detention order was subsequently revoked on 16-8-1975 and a fresh order of detention was made. The petitioner was not one of the petitioners who challenged the fresh order of detention in this Court in the batch of writ petitions heard by Kondaiah and Madhavarao, JJ. Nevertheless having regard to their judgment holding that the orders of detention passed on 16-8-1975 were invalid as no report was sent to the Central Government as required by Section 3(3) of the Act, the Government apparently felt that it is necessary to revoke the order of detention dated 16-8-1975 in the case of the petitioner also, as well as several other detenus as in all these orders no report had been sent to the Central Government. They therefore, passed an order of revocation and also passed a fresh order of detention on 10-10-1975. In the order of revocation, however, in the case of petitioner in W. P. No. 5448 of 1975 it is stated that the order of detention dated 26-6-1975 was revoked. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the order of the detention dated 10-10-1975. One of the contentions raised was that after the order of detention dated 26-6-1975. One of the contentions raised was that after the order of detention dated 26-6-1975 was made, the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. These grounds were either vague or were irrelevant. Hence were either vague or were irrelevant. Hence the order of detention dated 26-6-1975 was invalid and when a fresh order of detention was made on 10-10-1975 it must be taken that order was passed on the same grounds as the order of detention dated 26-6-1975 and as the said grounds were vague and irrelevant, the order of detention dated 10-10-1975 was also liable to be set aside for the same reason. In W. P. No. 5556 and 5765 of 1975 (Andh Pra) a Division Bench consisting of Chinnappa Reddy and Jeevan Reddy had rejected a similar contention advanced by the petitioners therein in similar circumstances. In their view, under Section 16-A(9) of the Act a statutory privilege was conferred upon the Government from disclosing the grounds of detention. The Court therefore cannot guest as to what those grounds may be and examine the validity of the latest detention order on the basis of the grounds furnished when the first order of detention was made. But a different view was taken by a Division Bench consisting of Madhava Reddy and Punnayya JJ. in W. P. Nos. 5119 of 1975 batch (Andh Pra). When the writ petition 5448/75 came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of Chinnappa Reddy and Madhava Reddy, JJ. they felt that in view of the apparent conflict it was desirable that the case may be beard by a Full Bench. Perhaps, because other contentions were also raised by the petitioners they considered it desirable that the entire case should be heard by a Full Bench. This writ petition was accordingly posted before us.