The companymunication .was on February 13.
The Advisory Board made its report to the State Government under section 10 of the Act on April 17, 1968.
Section 3 3 of the Act lays down The Central Government or the State Government may 1 When any order is made under this section by an officer mentioned in sub section 2 he shall forthwith report the act to the State Government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds on which the order has been made and such other particulars as in his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and numbersuch order made after the companymencement of the Preventive Detention Second Amendment Act, 1952, shall remain in force for more than twelve days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it has been approved by the State Government .
89 to 92 and 94 of 1968.
CI/68 5 tion on February 13, and the grounds of detention were companymunicated to the detenus on February 15.
The law points raised by him in these cases were companymon and will be dealt with together.
The petitions were argued by Mr. Ramamurthy together.
The present petitions were filed on March 12, 1968.
State Government gave the approval on February 19 and telegraphically companymunicated to the Central Government the fact of the detention on February 22 under section 3 4 .
This detention is challenged before us.
Here the charge is that the grounds furnished to the detenus were vague and the detention itself mala fide.
The order of detention in each case was made on the 9th of February.
The points of law were 1 that the detention was illegal as the report of the District Magistrate was number submitted forthwith as required by section 3 3 of the Act, 2 that the detention was again illegal as the order of approval of State Government under s. 3 3 was number companymunicated to the petitioners, 3 that the detention was illegal as the State Government had number reported the fact to the Central Government as soon as possible and without avoidable delay.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
On April 26, 1968, the State Government made the order detaining the petitioners for a period of one year.
On March 11, the Advisory Board companysidered the cases.
Part of the facts were also companymon although some special features were pointed out in some cases.
Petitions under Art.
The arrest and detention companymenced from the 11th.
State Government was informed of the fact of deten sup.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. These are five writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by persons detained under the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 by virtue of orders passed by the District Magistrate Tripura on February 2, 1968.
Niren De, Solicitor General and R.N. Sachthey, for the respondent in all the petitions .
The companymon points of fact are that the grounds were vague and the detention was for a companylateral purpose and mala fide.
K. Ramamurthi, for the petitioners in all the petitions .
These detenus and another since released were arrested on February 11, 1968.
