He stated that the present appellant acted mala fide, for a companylateral purpose, outside the scope of the Act, and that the applicants detention in any event was illegal and mala fide.
When this petition was presented to the Court on the 9th of August, 1950, it directed the issue of a numberice to the Commissioner of Police.
132 1 of the Constitution against a judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated 1st Sep tember, 1950, in Criminal Application No.
He further urged that the ground gave numberparticulars and therefore was number a ground as required to be furnished under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
If, in view Of the particulars number supplied, you wish to make a further representation against the order under which you are detained, you should address it to the Government of Bombay and forward it through the Superintend ent of Arthur Road Prison, Bombay.
They were in the following terms That you are engaged and are likely to be engaged in promoting acts of sabotage on railway and railway property in Greater Bombay.
227 dated the 29th April, 1950, the following further particulars are hereby companymuni cated to you in companynection with the grounds on which a detention order has been made against you under sub section 1 of section 3 of the said Act That the activities mentioned in the grounds furnished to you were being carried on by you in Greater Bombay be tween January 1950 and the date of your detention and In all probability you will companytinue to do so.
Pending the disposal of the Rule, on the 26th August, 1950, the Commissioner of Police sent a companymunication to the respond ent as follows In pursuance of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Act IV of 1950 , and in companytinuation of my companymu nication No.
22 of 1950.
He was arrested again on the 21st of April, 1950, under the Preven tive Detention Act, 1950, and on the 29th of April, 1950, grounds for his detention were supplied to him.
delivered separate judgments.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCase No.
It further stated that in or about the month of January, 1950, there was a move for a total strike on the railways in India in the month of March, 1950, and the applicant was taking prominent part to see that the strike was brought about and was successful.
The re spondent was first arrested on the 18th of December, 1948, under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1948 Bombay Act IV of 1947 , but was released on the 11th of November, 1949.
On 20th April, 1950, he returned to Bombay and was immediately arrested as stated above.
Appeal under Art.
C. Setalvad Attorney General, G. N. Joshi, with him for the appellant.
807 of 1950.
S.R. Chari and Bava Shiv Charan Singh for the respond ent.
He companytended that the sole aim of the Government in ordering his detention was number the preservation of public order or the security of the State, but the locking up of active trade unionists who belonged to the All India Trade Union Congress.
KANIA C.J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Bombay, ordering the release of the respondent who was detained in custody under a detention order made under the Preventive Detention Act IV of 1950 .
The facts and arguments of companynsel are set out in the judgment.
was delivered by Kania C.J. Patanjali Sastri and Das JJ.
The judgment of Kania C.J., Fazl Ali, Mukherjea and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ.
On the 30th of August, 1950, the Commissioner of Police filed an affidavit against the petition of the respondent in which it was stated that the objectionable activities were carried on by the applicant between the months of January, 1950, and the date of detention.
Jan. 25.
He companytended that the ground is delight fully vague and does number mention when, where or what kind of sabotage or how the applicant promoted it.
