KISHORILAL BAHATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by one Kishorilal Bahati under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directed against an order of detention, dated 24 -2 -51, passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 (Act IV of 1950) as amended by Act IV of 1951, by the District Magistrate, Sibsagar. The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner are these:

(2.) THE petition before us was filed on 5 -4 -51. On 30 -5 -51 certain facts were brought to our notice, namely, that the statutory Advisory Board, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 8 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950, was for the first time constituted by the Government of Assam by a Notification No. C. 216/51/159, dated 3 -4 -51. The following three gentlemen were appointed members of the Advisory Board: (1) Sri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri (2) Sri Ikram Rasul and (3) Sri Kedar -mal Brahmin. The petitioner alleged that his case was not considered by all the three members, but by two only, as Sri Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri, a Member of Parliament, did not attend the sittings of the Board. In the original petition filed by the petitioner, various grounds were taken, but it is unnecessary to deal with them, as we propose to dispose of the petition on the ground taken in the supplementary petition, dated 30 -5 -51.

(3.) WE think the language of the proviso makes it clear that after 22 -2 -51, when the amending Act came into force, no reference can be disposed of by two members of the Advisory Board. Section 10 of Act IV of 1950, as amended, deals with the procedure to be followed by the Advisory Board. Originally no provision was made under Section 10 of Act IV of 1950 for cases in which a difference of opinion arose between the two members of the Advisory Board. Such a provision has now been made by Section 10 of the amending Act of 1951 by the insertion of Sub -section 2 -A after Sub -section (2) of Section 10 of Act IV of 1950. Sub -section 2 -A reads: