They companytend firstly that the grounds for the order of detention which were furnished to them under section 7 of the Act are vague, and secondly that the requirements of section 3 3 of the Act had number been companyplied with, in that those grounds had been sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate, number along with, his report on 28th January 1956, but on 6th February 1956, after the State Government had approved of the order.
On 26th January 1956 the District Magistrate, Than, passed orders under section 3 2 of the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the detention of the petitioners, and in execution of the orders, they were arrested on 27th January 1956.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
September 17.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
The petitioners challenge the validity of the detention on two grounds.
100 and 101 of 1956.
The next day, the District Magistrate sent his report to the State Government which on 3rd February 1956 approved of the same.
A companyy of these grounds was sent to the State Government on 6th February 1956.
Meantime, on 30th January 1956 the District Magistrate formulated the grounds on which the orders of detention were made, and the same were companymunicated to the petitioners on 31st January 1956.
C. Chatterjee, Sadhan Chandra Gupta and Janardhan Sharma, for the petitioners.
