KUNDAN LAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under 'article 32 (2-A) of the Constitution of India as applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State and Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code for issue of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the release from detention of the petitioner.

(2.) THE material facts leading to this petition are;-Pursuant to Order No. 13/pda/69 dated 25-7-1969 issued under Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the J. and K. Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), by the District Magistrate, Poonch, respondent No. 1 therein, the petitioner was arrested by the police on 29-71969 at 7-15 A. M. and was detained in the Central Jail, Jammu, with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, the maintenance of public order and essential supplies. On the date of the passing of the aforesaid order of detention the District Magistrate also made an order under Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the Act directing that the petitioner be informed that it was against public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention order was made. The order of detention was approved by the Government of Tammu and Kashmir's Order No. ISD-275-A of 1969 dated 14-8-1969. On 1-9-1969 the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of his detention. During the pendency of the petition, the aforesaid detention order was revoked by the Government vide its Order No. ISD-304 of 1969 dated 19-9-1969 on account of some "technical defect" under Section 14 (1) of the Act. On the same date a fresh Order No. ISD-305 of 1969 directing the detention of the petitioner in the Additional Police Lock Up attached to Saddar Police Station Tammu was issued by the Government under Section 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. By its No. 306 of 1969 of even date the Government also made an order under Section 8 read with Section 13-A of the Act informing the petitioner that it was against public interest to disclose the facts and to communicate to him the grounds on which his detention had been made.

(3.) ON 16-10-1969 the petitioner filed an amended petition challenging the fresh order of his detention averring that the order was illegal and void as it had been passed mala fide with ulterior motives, that the detention had been ordered without sufficient reasons and satisfaction as to the existence of facts warranting his detention, that the detention was violative of Section 14 (2) of the Act, that the fresh order of his detention could be justified only in case fresh facts had arisen after the date of the revocation of the previous order; that no such new facts had been mentioned by the detaining authority for issue of fresh order of his detention, that the issue of fresh detention order was also illegal and void as no grounds of detention as required by Section 8 of the Act had been supplied to him, that proviso to Section 8 of the Act was unconstitutional, illegal and void because it contravened the provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, that the detention was illegal as he had not been afforded an opportunity of making a representation against the order to the Government as provided by Section 8 of the Act, and that the detention was also illegal as no reference under Section 10 of the Act had been made to the Advisory Board,