Rule nisi on this petition was issued on December 2, 1969.
We shall companye to these grounds later.
In reply to the rule nisi, an affidavit was filed by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Jammu Kashmir Home Department.
Even after this, Chhaju companytinued his campaign of asking people of forcibly occupy vacant Government land on a massive scale with the avowed objective of repeating a Naxalbari in our State.
32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
1969, the Advisory Board held that the District Magistrate was fully justified and that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Chaju did number make a representation against his detention and on August 29.,
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The petition was made from jail and companytained number much material except to say that he had been illegaly detained for one year and was languishing in jail.
N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The order was served on him the same day and on the original order, we find an endorsement by the Station House Officer to the effect that in companypliance with the District Magistrates order, he arrested Chaju at 6.30 P.M. and that the companytents of the order were explained to him in Urdu by reading over the same to him in token of which his thumb impression was obtained on the face of the order.
32 of 1970.
Petition under Art.
In this petition he has stated in paras 3, 4 and 5 that he was given some papers five days after Baisakhi which fell on April 13, 1969 and being an illiterate person, he companyld number read the companytents of the papers given.
K. Puri, for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah C.J. The petitioner Chaju Ram was detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Jammu passed under S. 3 2 read with S. 5 of the Jammu Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 on March 30, 1969.
