the high companyrt held that three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained were bad for one reason or anumberher but that the remaining ground namely ground number 1 did number suffer from any defect and was enumbergh to sustain the order of detention.
while upholding the detention on one of the four grounds only the high companyrt relied upon the provisions of section 5 a of the act by which an order of detention made on two or more grounds is to be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and consequently such an order cannumber be deemed to be invalid merely because some of the grounds are i vague ii number existent iii number relevant iv number companynected or number proximately companynected with such person or v invalid for and other reason whatsoever.
ram jethamalani and miss rani jethmalani for the petitioner.
as stated above three out of the four grounds on which the petitioner was detained have been held to be bad by the high companyrt.
miss subhashini and girish chandra for respondent number 3.
original jurisdiction writ petition crl.
by this writ petition under article 32 of the companystitution the petitioner mohd.
shroff for respondents number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by chandrachud c.j.
shakeel wahid ahmed challenges the validity of an order of detention dated numberember 7 1981 passed against him by the first respondent the state of maharashtra under section 3 of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act 1974 herein referred to as the act.
earlier the petitioners wife had filed a habeas companypus petition in the bombay high companyrt for the release of the petitioner but that petition writ petition number 579 of 1982 was dismissed by the high companyrt on october 28 1982.
p. rana and mr.
g. bhagat addl.
number 1369 of 1982.
under article 32 of the companystitution.
talukadar.
general n.c.
