TEJ SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is and has always been residing in the area which initially formed part of the Princely State of Mandi. He was an active participant in the Praja Mandal Movement carried on in the Mandi State since long time prior to its merger with the Union of India on May 1, 1948. It appears that on account of his involvement in the Praja Mandal Movement, he had earned the displeasure of the State administration.

(2.) On or about July 21, 1947 (5.5.2004 Bk.), the then Home Minister of Mandi made a proposal for the detention of some persons and one amongst them was the petitioner. In the proposal, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure PB, the petitioner was described as a "confirmed seditionist" who indulged in delivering speeches creating disaffection in the public mind and advocating blood bath and unlawful activities for attaining independence. The Home Minister observed that it was, at one stage, considered to prosecute the petitioner for his unlawful activities since executive action might not be considered proper. However, in view of the various difficulties in obtaining conviction at a criminal trial, the proposal was dropped. The Home Minister proposed that the petitioner be detained under S.4 of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance (1 of 2004 Bk.) for a period of six months. The proposal appears to have been submitted for sanction to the Ruler of Mandi State on July 22. 1947 (6.5.2004 Bk.), who rnade an order, a copy whereof has been produced at Annexure PC, to the effect that the matter was discussed at length and that the authorities might take such action as they considered best in the interest of the State and the people.

(3.) It appears that pursuant to the decision taken as aforesaid, the petitioner was detained from Sept. 3, 1947 (13.6.2004 Bk.) till Feb. 4, 1948 (13.11.2004 Bk.), that is to say, for a total period of five months and one day. At Annexure PD, the petitioner has produced an extract of the Register of Undertrial Prisoners in the Mandi Jail. The extract has been verified with the original record, which was produced for our inspection by the second respondent, and it has been found to be substantially correct. The extract shows that the petitioner's detention in the Mandi Jail commenced on Sept. 3, 1947, that his detention was under S.4(1) of the Mandi State Public Safety Ordinance and that he was released on Feb. 4, 1948 pursuant to an order of even date made by the Ruler of Mandi State.