It was specifically mentioned in the grounds that it was number in the public interest to disclose further facts.
Government is accordingly pleased to companyfirm the detention order issued against the detenu.
The case papers of the detenu are returned herewith.
A companyy of the said order was served on the petitioner at the time of his ar rest.
B.D. II/1042 D 11 Home Department Political Bombay Castle, To 28th April, 1951.
That application was, on April 17, 1951, dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
The District Magistrate, Surat.
Please inform the detenu accordingly and report companypliance.
32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
According to the affidavit of Venilal Tribho vandas Dehejia, Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department, filed in answer to the present application, this report of the Advisory Board was placed before the Govern ment and, on April 13, 1951, the Government decided to companyfirm the order of detention.
In the meantime, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board which on Aprils, 1951, made a report stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
This decision was, on April 28, 1951, companymunicated to the District Magistrate, Surat, in a companyfidential letter in the terms following Confidential letter No.
Bawa Shiv Charan Singh amicus curiae for the petition er.
Two affida vits were filed on behalf of the State in support of the detention order.
Sd G, K. Kharkar, for Secretary to the Government of Bom bay, Home Department.
In that appli cation one of the points urged was that the grounds in support of the detention were false, vague and fantastic and that the detention order was made in bad faith.
The petitioner moved the High Court of Bombay under article 226 of the Constitution companyplaining that his detention was illegal and praying that he should be forthwith released.
1187/P, dated the 23rd Febru ary, 1951, on the subject numbered above.
In accordance with section 9 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the case of detenu Shri Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar was placed before the Advisory Board which has reported that there is sufficient cause for his detention.
On February 15, 1951, the petitioner was arrested under an order made on February 13, 1951, by the then District Magistrate, Surat, in exercise of powers companyferred on him by the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
It also appears from the aforesaid affidavit that Sri K. Kharkar who signed the letter for the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Home Department, was at the time an Assistant Secretary and, as such, was, under rule 12 of the Rules of Business made by the Government of Bombay under article 166 of the Constitution, authorised to sign orders and instruments of the Government of Bombay.
The petitioner has number moved this Court under article 32 of the Constitution companyplaining that he is being unlawfully detained.
The Court delivered judgment as fol lows DAS J. This is an application under article 82 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas companypus and for the immediate release of the petitioner who is alleged to have been kept in illegal detention in Baroda Central Prison.
March 27.
683 of 1951 under Art.
That decision does number by implication suggest that it was number obligatory on government to specify the period of detention under section 11.
The facts are set out in detail in the judgment.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India Jindra Lal, with him for the respondents.
Subject Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Review of detention orders issued under the Reference your letter No.
