TAJINDER SINGH Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions (for issue of writs in this nature of Habeas Corpus directing the release of the petitioner) which raise identical questions have been referred to the Division Bench by one of us as they involve the decision of an important point namely as to what is the effect of failure to mention in the order conveying the grounds of detention to the detenue or the omission to convey to him otherwise that he has a right to make a representation against the order of his detention.

(2.) FOR a proper appreciation of the point involved, it is necessary to set out a few facts which are material for the purpose of the decision of these petitions.

(3.) THE petitioners, it appear; were arrested and detained under two separate orders, issued by the District Magistrate Jammu, under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The fact of detention of the petitioners and the grounds and the circumstances on which the orders of their detention were made were reported by the District Magistrate, Jammu, to the Government who approved the action of the District Magistrate on 8 -12 -1968. The grounds of detention were supplied by the detaining authority to the petitioners on 25 -11 -67 and their cases were as required by Section 10 of the Act referred to the Government on 12 -1 -1968 to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act The Advisory Board, having reported on 8 -4 -1968, that in its opinion, there was sufficient materials for detention of the petitioners, the Government confirmed the orders of their detention and directed their continuance in detention vide Orders Nos. ISD -413 -J of 1968 and ISD -413 -J of 1968 dated 15 -4 -1968. The petitioners there -upon filled petitions for issue of......writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention contending interalia that their detentions were invalid and unlawful as they were not afforded any opportunity of making a representation against the order of their detention. The petitions were first heard by a Single Judge of the court, who, as stated above, referred them to a Division Bench as in his opinion, the question involved in the petitions was of great importance. "