AMMAR NATH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four petitions under Section 103 of the State Constitution praying for issue of writs in the nature of habeas corpus directing the release of the petitioners who are said to be unlawfully detained in the Central Jail, Jammu. As the petitions raise common questions of law these will be dealt with together.

(2.) THE petitioners in the first three petitions viz. , Ammar Nath son of Des Raj, Tilak Raj. and Manohar Nath Tikku were arrested on the 8th October 1967 in execution of the orders of the District Magistrate Jammu passed by him under Section 3 (a) (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevenventive Detention Act, 1964 directing the detention of the petitioners in the Central Jail, Jammu, with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The fourth petitioner, Ammar Nath son of Faqir Ohand was arrested on 21. 10. 67 in pursuance of an order passed for the same reason by the District Magistrate Jammu on the same date under the same provision i. e. Section (3) (a) (i) of the said Act. As appears from the affidavit of the Home Secretary to the Government of Jammu and Kashmir, the fact of detentions of the petitioners in the first three petitions together with the grounds on which the orders were made was communicated to the Government vide District Magistrate's reports dated 16th October 1967, The grounds of detention appear to have been served on these detenus on the 17th October 1967. The orders of detention in respect of these petitioners were approved by the Government on the 28th October 1967, So far as Ammar Nath son of Faqir Chand is concerned the grounds of his detention bearing date 28th October 1967 were served on him on 29th October 1967, and the fact of his arrest and detention together with the grounds thereof was reported to the Government on 2nd November 1967. In this case, the approval of the Government to the order of detention was accorded on the 11th November 1967.

(3.) MR. Ram Nath Bhalgotra appearing for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the detentions of the petitioners on two grounds. In the first place, it has been urged by him that the fact of the detentions has not been reported to the Government in time as required by Section 3 (3) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1964. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the grounds set out in Para. 3 (d) of the grounds served on Ammar Nath son of Des Raj, grounds set out in sub-paras. (a), (b) and (c) of Para. 3 of the grounds served on Tilak Raj, grounds set out in sub-paras (e), (f) and (g) of Para. 3 of the grounds served on Manohar Nath Tikku and grounds set out in sub-paras, (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (i) of para 3 of the grounds served on Ammar Nath son of Faqir Chand are vague and irrelevant.