SUNDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions arise for decision in the present case, namely (1) Should an order passed under section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act specify the period for which the person concerned is to be detained and (2) Is it necessary for Government when it proceeds to confirm an order of detention and to continue the detention of the person concerned, to supply the grounds on which the detention is being continued?

(2.) THE detenu in the present case is one Hari Shah, a resident of the Amritsar District. He was arrested on the 26th June 1951 in pursuance of an order made by the District Magistrate of amritsar under Section 3 of the Act of 1950 and the grounds on which the order was made were communicated to him. He was to remain in detention for a period of three months, i. e. , up to the 25th September 1951. On the 30th July 1951 when the order of the District Magistrate was still in force the Punjab Government confirmed the order of detention under Section 11 of the statute and directed that the detention should continue up to the 25th December 1951. A petition under article 226 of the Constitution has been presented on behalf of the detenu and it has been contended that as the order of confirmation and extension of the detention passed by the provincial Government was not accompanied by any fresh grounds for extending the period of detention the order must be deemed to be void and of no effect.

(3.) SECTION 7 of the Act of 1950 provides that when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as Soon as may be, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government.