SOBRAN LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Governor by Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, being satisfied that, with a view to preventing Shri Sobran Lal from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, and civil defence and the efficient conduct of military operations, it is necessary to detain him, by his order No. 32 D dated 2nd March, 1963, the Governor directed that he be arrested by the police wherever found and detained in the Bhagalpur Special Central Jail until further orders. Pursuant to this order, Sobran Lal was arrested on 4-3 1963. On 39-3-1963, he brought this application under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, substantially on the grounds that the grounds for his detention were not communicated to him, that the order of detention is not a bona fide order, as it has been made for an ulterior motive and for a collateral purpose, that the order is mala fide as there is malice, in law, which can be inferred from the very fact that the order is made contrary to the objects and purposes of the Defence of India Act and the Rules made thereunder that the detaining authority has permitted himself to be influenced by extraneous considerations, that the order is not based on materials of a rationally probative value and lacks good faith, that prior to the issuance of this order a proceeding had been instituted against the petitioner under Section no of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same object would be achieved in that proceeding, and, therefore, in detaining him for an indefinite period of time, the authority has acted mala fide and that the order is illegal and improper and he should be set at liberty forthwith.

(2.) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State denying the allegations of mala fides and asserting that the order passed by the Governor of Bihar was based on sufficient other materials against the petitioner and those materials could not be disclosed in the interest of the defence of India and national security.

(3.) I think that none of the grounds of challenge is available to the petitioner. The Government is not bound to disclose the materials on which the order of the Governor is rested, and Court is incompetent to require disclosure of the materials, nor is it competent for the Court to consider the authority of the order on merits. Section 45 of the Defence of India Act, 1962, lays down that no order made in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court. In view of authoritative judicial pronouncements, I do not propose to embark upon a detailed examination of the grounds urged before us. It will suffice to refer succinctly to those authorities. Before 1 do so, it is necessary to point out that the provisions of Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1963, are in pari materia with Rule 20 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939. Now, in In re, Manubhai Bhikabhai, AIR 1943 Bom 194 Beaumont C.J., delivering the judgment of the Bench, observed as follows: