On the 11th of March, 1948, the Provincial Government of Bihar, in exercise of their powers under the proviso mentioned above, extended the application of the Act for a further period of one year from 15th March, 1948, and it was during this extended period that the orders for arrest and detention against the appellants were initially made.
In view of the pronouncements of this companyrt, the Governor of Bihar promulgated an Ordinance on the model of the Maintenance of the Public Order Act, on 3rd June, 1949, by which provisions were made inter alia for preventive detention in companynection with public safety and maintenance of order in the Province of Bihar.
On 21st June, 1949, this Ordinance was declared void and in operative by High Court of Patna on the ground that as the Legislature of the Province of Bihar, though number actually sitting, was neither prorogued number dissolved, the Governor companyld number promulgate an Ordinance under section 88 1 of the Government of India Act.
It was further held that the Bihar Act V of 1949, which the Bihar Legislature had passed in the meantime, and which purported to amend the provision of section 1 3 of the earlier Act was also invalid in law inasmuch as the enactment which it purported to amend was number legally in existence when this amending Act was passed.
On 22nd June following, a fresh Ordinance was passed, which is Ordinance No.
The appellants, along with other detenus filed applications before the Patna High Court under section 491 Criminal Procedure Code challenging the validity of the Ordinance itself and the propriety of the detention orders, made under it, on various grounds.
The applications were heard in different batches by different Benches of the Patna High Court.
On the strength of these certificates, these sixteen appeals have companye up to this companyrt.
By a judgment delivered on 28th May, 1949, this companyrt held that the proviso to section 1 3 of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act was ultra vires the Provincial Government as it amounted to a delegation of legislative function to an outside authority and companysequently the extension of the operation of the act beyond the period of one year originally fixed was void and inoperative.
That Act, which received the assent of the Governor General on 15th of March, 1947, was to remain operative under section 1 3 of the Act for a period of one year only from the date of its companymencement, subject to a proviso engrafted upon the sub section itself, which empowered the Provisional Government to extend it, with or without modifications, for a further period of one year, by means of a numberification, on a resolution being passed to that effect by the Bihar Legislative Assembly and agreed to by the Bihar Legislative Council.
The appellants were originally arrested under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947.
IV of 1949 and which re enacted in substance the provisions of the earlier Ordinance Under this Ordinance fresh orders of detention were passed and served on all the appellants.
dated the 12th July, 1949.
There are altogether ten judgments which have been challenged in the appeals before us, the principals one being that of Ramaswami and Narayan, JJ.
When the appeals were called on for hearing, the appellants appeared in person and were number represented by any lawyer.
Mukherjea, J. These sixteen appeals arise out of as many applications presented by the different appellants under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, companyplaining of illegal detention under section 2 1 a of the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1949.
