In his petition to the High Court, the petitioner raised a number of grounds of attack against the legality of the order of his detention, and most of those grounds have been reiterated in this Court.
19 of 1961.
January 31.
The grounds of detention were served on the same day.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Sen and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
S. Bobde, B. A. Masodkar, M. L. Vaidya, M. Kinkhede and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
In this companynection, it is necessary to state the following facts.
CC X 2 of 1961 office of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, Dt.
226 of the Constitution, read with s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he had prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce the petition in Court and to set him at liberty.
It appears that an Order of Detention, under s. 3 1 a ii of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act was made by the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 10, 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated July 11, 1961 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench , dismissing the appellants application, under Art.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cr.
Seal of the Sd D.H. Deshmukh M. Nagpur District Magistrate, Nagpur He also directed that the appellant should be detained in the District Prison, Thana, and that for the purpose of the Bombay Condition of Detention order, 1951, be treated as a Class II Prisoner.
The order of Detention is in these terms No.
ORDER OF DETENTION UNDER SEC.
It is number possible to supply any translation of the same for is sic it legally necessary under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 10 and 11, 1961, of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in Criminal Application No.
The order and the grounds of detention served on you were fully explained to you by the Police Officer in the presence of the D.S.P. Nagpur City.
Given this 10th day of April 1961 under my signature and seal.
189 of 1961.
This application was heard by us on January 8 and 9, 1962, and after hearing Shri A. S. Bobde for the appellant and the learned Attorney General for the State of Maharashtra, we directed that the appellant be released forthwith, and that the reasons for our judgment will follow later.
We number proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day.
A. No.
10th April, 1961.
The appellant wrote a letter to the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 19, 1961, to the effect that he had been served with an Order of Detention dated April 10, 1961, and that the Order and the grounds of detention being in English, he was unable to understand them, and therefore, asked for a Hindi version of the same so that he may be able to follow and understand the charges levelled against him and take necessary steps for his release from jail.
The High Court, dealing with this companytention on behalf of the detenue, came to the companyclusion that under the Constitution English still companytinued to be the official language of the State of Maharashtra, and that service of the Order in English upon the detenue was sufficient companypliance with the requirements of cl.
And then follow numberable particular of his activities, running into five closely typed pages and companytained in many paragraphs.
