On July 24, 1956, the appellant was served with the grounds on which the order of detention had been passed as required by the Act.
was delivered by S. K. Das J. Sarkar J. delivered a separate judgment.
The appellant challenged the legali ty of these orders of detention and moved the High Court of Punjab for the issue of an appropriate writ for his release.
Appeal by special leave from the judgments and orders dated September 24, 1956, of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi and dated September 26, 1956, of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ No.
Hence this appeal.
This companysti tutional point was referred to and decided by a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court by an order dated September 24, 1956.
The appellant was arrested and taken in custody on the same date On July 24, 1956, the grounds of detention were companymu nicated to the appellant under s. 7 of the Preventive Deten tion Act, No.
The appellant thereafter made a representation against the order which was company sidered by the Advisory Board, companystituted under the Act.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court.
128 D of 1956.
The petitioner challenges the validity of the orders of detention on the ground that the provision of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, under which they were made is ultra vires the Constitution.
May 24.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In the petition to the Punjab High Court under Art.
The Judgment of Bhagwati, Jafer Imam, K. Das and J. L. Kapur JJ.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
We dismiss the appeal by a majority of 4 to 1 A. K. Sarkar J. dissenting for reasons to be recorded later.
IV of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
96 of 1957.
September 17.
IV of 1950 , as amended, the Central Government hereby orders that the said Shri Puran Lal Lak hanpal, son of Shri Diwan Chand Sharma, be detained.
SARKAR J. This appeal arises out of an application for the issue of a writ of habeas companypus.
Appellant in person.
The case of the appellant was then sent to an Advisory Board companystituted under s. 8 of the Act, and the Advisory Board having reported that there was, in its opinion, suffi cient Gause for detention of the appellant, the Central Government companyfirmed the order of detention on August 20, 1956, and stated further that the appellant ,shall companytinue in detention for a period of twelve months from the date of his detention.
BY THE COURT.
a i of sub s. 1 of s. 3 of the Preventive Deten tion Act, 1950 Act No.
These are our reasons for the order which we passed on May 24, 1957, dismissing the appeal.
On the materials placed before us, we unhesitatingly hold that numbermala fides have been established.
He then moved this Court, and obtained special leave to appeal from the aforesaid orders of the Punjab High Court dated September 24, and September 26, 1956, respectively.
The order then companycluded Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in the Central Government by cl.
K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave, and the appellant is Puran Lal Lakhanpal.6n July 21, 1956, the Government of India in the Ministry of Rome Affairs passed an order of preventive detention against the appellant in which it was stated, inter alia, that with a view to pre venting the appellant from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of India and the relations of India with for eign powers, it was necessary to make an order against the appellant.
This order fur ther stated that in view of the report of the Advisory Board the Government of India companyfirmed the detention order earli er made against the appellant and that the appellant should companytinue in detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention.
On July 21, 1956, the appellant was taken into custody under an order of detention passed against him by the Government of India under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Act, IV of 1950 .
In my view the appeal can be disposed of on one ground, and in this judgment I propose to deal with that ground alone.
On August 22, the appellant was served with another order made by the Government of India wherein it was stated that the Advisory Board bad reported that there was in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of the appellant.
