AMDAD HUSSAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a 'habeas corpus' petition filed by Amdad Hussain, who has been ordered by the District Magisirate, Amritsar, to be detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) read with Sub-rule (4) of Rule 30-A of the Defence of India flules. The detention order is to the following effects Whereas I, P. N. Bhaila, I. A. S. , District Magistrate,. Amritsar, am satisfied in respect of Sftri Amdad Hussain son of Rahlm Bux originally r/o Sur Singh, P. S. Bhikhwind and now twenty seven Ludwick Road, London, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the defence of India and the efficient conduct of Military operations, It is necessary to detain him. New, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (4) of Rule 30-A of the Defence of India (Second Amendment) Rules, 1962 read with Punjab government Notification No. 70 (868)-5j-63/2986, dated 23-1-63, f, P. N. Bhaila, I. A. S. , District Magistrate, Amritsar, here-fey order that Shri Amdad Hussain son of Rahim Bux, r/o 27, Ludwick Road, London, shall be arrested and detained under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, at Amritsar in the Police lock-up Sarai Agha Khan.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the petitioner, he was arrested by the police on 11-2-1963 within two hours of his arrival in the Union territory of India Under Sections 411 and 414, Indian Penal Code, 19 of the Arms Act, 9 of the Opium1 Act and 3 of the Official Secrets Act The petitioner was produced before the Additional District Magistrate on 2-3-1963 and was discharged, but within a few minutes of that he was arrested under Rule 30 (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules.

(3.) IT Is stated that the petitioner is a British Subject and citizen: of the United Kingdom. Ha has not visited fndia since June 1962 and, therefore, could not be a source of Impediment in the successful and efficient conduct of military operations. The order of detention is stated to be illegal because it is for an unspecified period. The petitioner denies the correctness of the statement in the detention order that he was originally a resident of village Sur Singh, District Amritsar. According to the petitioner, he has never been a citizen of India at any time and as suth he cannot be detained without any trial under the Defence of India Rules. The detention of the petitioner is described by him to be null and void. The petitioner has, accordingly, prayed that he be set at liberty.