145/J/71/Orissa P.D. Act/275 Imphal the 18th March, 1971 TO The District Magistrate, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.
The Jailor Manipur Central Jail by his letter dated 18th March, 1971 wrote to District Magistrate giving the requisite information.
The letter of the Jailor dated March 18, 1971 referred to in the companynter affidavit is as follows Government of Manipur Manipur Central Jail, Imphal No.
427 9 70 of I.P S. u s 124 A/153 A I.P.C. under the orders of the A.D.M. and released on 18 12 70 on bail.
The petitioners, in companysequence of these orders, were taken into custody and detained.
The order of detention passed against Prof. Nandlal Sharma was later on revoked by the Lt.
It was thereupon forwarded to the Chief Secretary who in his turn brought it to the numberice of the Administrator.
A true companyy of the letter dated 18 3 1971 addressed by the Jailor to the District Magis trate, Manipur Central Jail is annexed to this affidavit and marked as a Annexure II.
32 of the Constitution of India for writs in the nature of habeas companypus.
The reason given is that enquiries were made from the Jail authorities through the Sub Deputy Collector, Headquarters about certain 1028 facts relating to Prof. Nandlal Sharma and in respect of the same a letter of the Jailor, Manipur Central Jail dated March 18, 1971 has been referred to and filed along with the companynter affidavit.
The Administrator companysidered the representation received from the detenus and rejected the same on March 20, 1971.
The detenus were informed accordingly on 22 3 1971.
Governor revoked the order of detention of Nandlal Sharma who was thereupon released.
Nadiya Chand Singh, Jailor, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal.
They seek relief for issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus and for directions being issued to the respondent the State of Manipur to release them from custody.
Submitted for favour of necessary companyrection.
289 to 295 of 1971.
The petitioners were informed about the rejection of the representation by companymunication dated March 22, 1971.
The orders of detention state that they have been passed with a view to preventing the petitioners from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Governor and he was released.
The Lt.
The cases of the petitioners were referred to the Advisory Board on February 16, 1971 as required under 1024 s.9 of the Act.
From the above it will be seen that the respondent seeks to offer an explanation for passing the order only on March 20, 1971 though the representation was received on March 3.
The petitioners, in Writ Petitions Nos.
On February 10, 1971, the Administrator under s. 3 3 approved the orders of detention passed by the District Magistrate on January 31, 1971 and the orders of approval were also companymunicated to the detenus.
In paragraph 13 of the companynter affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government, it is admitted that the representation dated March 1, 1971 made by the petitioners was reecived by the Government on March 3, 1971 and rejected by the Administrator on March 20, 1971.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
In the representation, the petitioners had raised various grounds of attack against the order of detention.
P. Verma and Petitioners were also present, for the petitioners in all the Petitions .
Yours faithfully, Sd.
Petitions under Art.
1023 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. The seven petitioners in these writ petitions under Art.
C. Manchanda, 0.
The Advisory Board companysidered the matter and sent its report on April 18, 1971 expressing its opinion that the detention of the petitioners was justified.
All the petitioners made a joint representation on March 1, 1971, which was received by the Government on March 3, 1971.
The grounds of detention, as required by s. 7 1 of the Act were furnished to the detenus on the same day.
32 of the Constitution, challenge the validity of the orders of detention dated January 31, 1971 passed against each of them by the District Magistrate, Manipur Central under subs.
They had also very elaborately dealt with them and very strenuously refuted the various allegations companytained in the grounds served on them, on the basis of which the orders of detention had been passed.
2 of s. 3 read with sub s. 1 of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act as extended to Manipur.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent in all the Petitions .
Having received this information I beg your pardonance to companyrect as follows that Shri Nandlal Sharma was in this jail for the period from 4 12 70 in companynection with F.I.R. No.
The actual reasons given by the Secretary as to why it took 17 days for rejecting the representation can very well be set out as stated in the companynter affidavit, which is as follows It took 17 days for the representation to be companysidered and decided because enquiries were sought from the Jail authorities through S. D. Headquarters regarding certain facts brought out as regards Nandlal Sharma.
Along with the petitioners another person, Prof. Nandlal Sharma, was also detained.
Subject Query on the stay of Shri Nandlal Sharma in Jail in December, 1970.
