GURDIAL SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY two separate orders, dated 31st October, 1971 passed under Section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971= hereinafter called the Act, the District Magistrate, Amritsar; ordered the detention of Gurdial. Singh, son of Hazara Singh of village Waan and Jarnail Singh, son of Santa Singh of village Rajoke on the ground that they were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of. the State and the maintenance of. public: order. Gurdial Singh and Jarnail Singh challenged the order of their detention by two separate petitions - -Criminal Original No. 33M of 1972 and Criminal Original No. 34M of 1972, under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitions first came up before me sitting in Single Bench and during arguments in these petitions, one of the principal contentions raised was that the grounds of detention of the Petitioners were covered by Clause (a)(i) of Section 3(1) and the District Magistrate had, therefore, no jurisdiction to pass the order as he could only pass the order if the grounds were covered only by Clauses (a)(ii) and (iii) of Section 3(1) of the Act. Considering that this point was of considerable importance and was not covered by any authority of this Court or of the Supreme Court) the case was referred to a larger Bench and has now come before us for disposal.

(2.) GURDIAL Singh Petitioner filed a representation against his detention on 17th November, 1971, through the Superintendent, Ceatral Jail, Amritsar, which was addressed to Respondent No. 1, through the Home Secretary, Punjab Government, Chandigarh. In this representation, the detention of the Petitioner was challenged for the reason that the grounds supplied to him were vague and indefinite and were without substance. By order, dated 28th December, 1971 (Annexure C to Criminal Original No. 33M of 1972) the Petitioner was informed that the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, was approved under Section 3 of the Act. It was also stated in the order that the Advisory Board had opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the Petitioner, and that in exercise of the powers under Section 12(1) of the Act the President, of India had confirmed the order of detention, and it was directed that Gurdial Singh Petitioner shall, continue to be in detention in the custody of the Inspector -General of Prisons, Punjab,. in any jail of the State of Punjab for a period of twelve months from the date of detention.

(3.) IN both these petitions the order of detention has been challenged mainly on two grounds, both of which are common, and both the petitions will, therefore, be disposed of by the present judgment. It is firstly canvassed before us that the order of the District Magistrate was ultra vires his powers for the reason that grounds of detention related to the defence of India or the security of India, which was a matter covered by Clause (i) of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act. The precise argument raised is that if once any of the grounds was covered by Clause (a)(i) of Section 3(1) the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass the order irrespective of the fact that the ground was also covered either by Clause (a)(ii) or (a)(iii) of Section 3(1). It is stated that in that eventuality only the Central Government or the State Government would have the jurisdiction to pass the order. Support for this argument was sought from a recent decision of this Court in Hazara Singh Bhallar v. District Magistrate, Amritsar Cr. W. No. 12 of 1972 decided on 30th March', 1972. In the grounds of detention supplied to the detenus in Bhallar's case, it was mentioned that he had met one Major Qayum Khan of Sutlej Rangers, Kasur, and had agreed to supply information about the Indian Army/B.S.F. units in Amritsar and also about the strength of the Army/B.S.F,/Police posted on important bridges and power houses. Allegations against Hazara Singh Bhallar further were that he had actually conveyed some "information to Major Qayum and he and some others had met one Karim Din and had agreed to create Hindu -Sikh hatred and internal disorder in Punjab and also to cause damage to bridges, water reservoirs and power houses in anticipation of the imminent Indo -Pakistan War on the issue of Bangla Desh. On a consideration of these grounds, this Court in Hazara Singh Bhallar's case (1), came to the conclusion that the grounds show the detenu had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India or the Security of India. It was for this reason that it was held that the District Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction and that his order of detention, in so far as grounds (a) to (c) (to which reference has been made above) were concerned, was ultra vires his authority.