MAQDOOM MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of the detenu Maqdoom Mohiuddin. It is alleged in the application that the detenu was arrested on the 7th May 1951 and was for 17 days kept in police custody without being produced before a Magistrate and that while in police custody he was subjected to tortures. It is asserted that the detention is mala fide, improper and illegal, and actuated from indirect motives and collateral purpose; that the particulars of his activities in Telangana as given in the grounds relate to a period which is remote for the purposes of detention and that it is not denied that the detenu is a member of a communist party which is banned in the Hyderabad State. It is asserted that the ban is ultra vires.

(2.) THE order of detention is dated 23 -5 -1951 and the grounds were furnished to the detenu on 7 -6 -1951. The grounds contain a long statement about the activities of the detenu covering two pages. The history & the career of the detenu have been given. The affidavit of three Police Officers have been filed. With the affidavit of Narsing Pershad, Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., an annexure which gives the details of the activities concerning the detenu as a communist has also been filed. It is not necessary To discuss in detail all the particulars mentioned in the grounds and also in the annexure. I will discuss only such of the grounds as I feel sufficient for the disposal of this petition.

(3.) THE next point for consideration is whether there was delay in communicating the grounds to the detenu. This point has not been specifically raised in the application but Mr Ataur Rahman, the learned counsel for the detenu argued that there was delay in communicating the grounds. As observed above the detenu was served with the order of detention on 23 -5 -1951 and the grounds were served on him on 7 -6 -1951. Thus, the grounds were served a fortnight after the order of detention. The Advocate -General argued that some time was necessary for preparing the grounds in view of the large volume of information available to the Detaining Authority. After reading all the grounds which cover about 13 paragraphs, I am of the opinion, that the explanation offered by the learned Advocate -General is reasonable and that the time of 14 days which elapsed between the order of detention and the furnishing of grounds is not unreasonable in view of the provisions of Art. 22, Cl. (5) of the Constitution. The time taken up in my opinion is reasonable for formulating the grounds on the material in possession of the Detaining Authority. In 'Battu Santhamma v. The State of Hyderabad',, ILR (1951) Hyd 654, already referred to a Full Bench of this High Court held that reasonable time necessary to formulate the grounds can be excluded. I am also supported in my view by the Full Bench CASE OF PANDURANG KASHINATH, IN RE', : AIR 1951 Bom 30, wherein the learned Chief justice, has observed at p. 31 as follows: