GHULAM QADIR HAWABAZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for securing a writ of Habeas Corpus submitted on behalf of Ghulam Qadir Hawabaz who has been ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Baramulla "with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. " This order was made on 22-4-1955. Under Section 8 of the Preventive Detention Act, grounds have been supplied to the detenu. The application came up for hearing before one of us (Kilam J.) who in view of the importance of the law-point involved in it, referred to a Full Bench.

(2.) THE detenu's learned Counsel, taking his stand upon some rulings of the Supreme Court, has advanced elaborate arguments mainly touching the point that the grounds were vague which in the submission of the learned Counsel was sufficient to vitiate the detention order. We have gone through the grounds. It is a huge document. But: a mere perusal of this document would show that some of the grounds are very vague in framing which the detaining authority does not seem to have applied his mind properly. For instance in most of tile grounds reference lias been made to the "nefarious designs of the detenu. " But it appears that the phrase nefarious designs has been used merely in a Pickwickian sense No details nor any description of the detenu "nefarious designs" have been given. It is possible that what may be "nefarious designs" in the eyes of the detaining authority, may be quite innocent in the opinion of others. What was needed was that the specific activities of the detenu should have been detailed so as to provide a clue to understand as to what really was meant by the detaining authority by tin's phrase. Besides that, in most of the grounds supplied, no date or time has been mentioned as to when those "nefarious designs" were being carried out by him. In 'prem Dutta v, Supdt. Central Prison" AIR 1954 All 315 (A) in none of the grounds had any date or time been mentioned. In one of the grounds in which it was alleged that the petitioner organized two illegal strikes, there was no mention of the dates and no particulars were given as to the place or places where the alleged strikes were said to have been caused by the detenu. On these facts it was held 'that those grounds were in terms which were too vague to enable the petitioner to make an adequate representation. " The detention order was set aside.

(3.) IN ground 3 (c) the detenu has been accused of having met some "mr. Beg and Kara respectively to get instructions from them. " Now everybody knows that there are many Begs in the city of Srinagar and also many Karas. The detenu can very easily say that as long as it is not specifically given as to which Beg or Kara is meant, he cannot make any effective representation to the Government. In the same ground it is said that