The validity of that Act was being challenged in the High Court and the judgment was expected to be delivered towards the end of February, 1950.
A second set of grounds were companymunicated to the appellants on the 22nd or 23rd of July, 1950.
The High Court rejected this companytention.
Under the circumstances of the case, we agree with the High Court and are unable to hold that in furnish ing the grounds dated the 14th March, 1950, the authorities had failed to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 22 5 of the Constitution.
132 1 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
As in the case of the first grounds, these supplemen tary grounds were also served on each appellant separately.
6163 H.S. dated 14th March, 1950, you are being informed of the supplementary grounds for your detention which are as follows You as the Secretary of the Bengal Chatkar Mazdoor Union, as a member of the Executive Committee of the Federa tion of Mercantile Employees Union, as the honorary report er of the Khabar newspaper C. P.I. organ carried on the disruptive programme of the C.P.I. On the 29th July, 1948, you along with others led a procession at Howrah preaching discontent against Government and have been thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General, B. Sen, with him for the respondent.
was delivered by Kania C.J. Patanjali Sastri and Das JJ.
On the 16th of July, 1950, the Government of West Bengal served on the appellants in companytinuation of the grounds already furnished on the 14th of March, 1950, supplementary grounds for their detention a specimen of which is in the following terms In companytinuation of the grounds already furnished under order No.
The appellants applied for a Rule of habeas companypus separate ly under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the 21st July, 1950, the High Court issued a Rule in each case on the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Ben gal.
361 of 1050.
By way of specimen we quote one of them You are beings detained in pursuance of a detention order made under sub clause ii of clause a of subsection 1 of section a of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, Act IV of 1950 , on the following grounds That you have been assisting the operations of the Communist Party of India, which along with its volunteer organisations has been declared unlawful by Government under section 16 of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act Act XIV of 1908 , and which has for its object companymission of rioting with deadly weapons, robbery, dacoity, arson and murder and possession and use of arms and ammunitions and explosives and thus acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that it is necessary to prevent you from acting in such manner.
The Judgment of Kania C.J., Fazl Ali, Mukherjea and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.,
That as a member of the C.P.I. on its Kishan front, you have fomented trouble amongst the peasants of Howrah District and incited them to acts of lawlessness and vio lence and have thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order That as a worker of the C.P.I. you have tried to foment trouble amongst the tramways men and other workers at Cal cutta and in speeches which you delivered at the University Hall and other places you actually incited them to resort to acts of violence and lawlessness and have thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
C. Gupta and Sudhansu Sekhar Mukherjee Arun Kumar Dutta and S.N. Mukherjee, with them for the appellants.
Jan. 25.
In the High Court, it was first companytended on behalf of the appellants that the companymunication of the grounds dated the 14th March was number a companypliance with article 22 5 of the Constitution of India, as those grounds were number companymu nicated as soon as may be.
Under the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1930, a very large number of persons were detained.
The Preventive Detention Act, 1950, was passed by the Parliament of India in the last week of February, 1950, and these orders on all those detenus were served on the 26th of February, 1950.
The High Court after companysidering the whole matter re jected the petitions of the appellants and the appellants have thereupon companye in appeal before us.
