It appears to have been company tended before the learned Judges Khosla and Falshaw JJ.
The petitioners applied to the High Court at Simla for similar relief under article 226 of the Constitution, but the petitions were dismissed.
The grounds of detention companymunicated to the petitioners were in identical terms, save as to the dates on which the speeches were said to have been made, and read thus In pursuance of section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act you are hereby informed that the grounds on which the detention order dated 22nd August, 1950, has been made against you are that your speeches generally in the past and particularly on August, 1950, at public meetings in Delhi has been such as to excite disaffection between Hindus and Muslims and thereby preju dice the maintenance of public order in Delhi and that in order to prevent you from making such speeches it is neces sary to make the said order.
21 and 22 Gopal Singh for the petitioner in Petition No.
April 6.
21, 22 and 44 of 1951.
1 1950 S.C.R. 605.
Applications under Art.
M. Sikri for the respondents.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
The petitioners were arrested on 22nd August, 1950, by order of the District Magistrate, Delhi, made under sub section 2 read with clause a sub clause i of sub section 1 of section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The order ran as follows Whereas I, Rameshwar Dayal, District Magistrate, Delhi, am satisfied that with a view to the maintenance of public order in Delhi it is necessary to do so, I, Rameshwar Dayal, District Magistrate, Delhi, hereby order the detention of under sub section 2 of section 3 1 a of the Preventive Detention Act.
Hardayal Hardy for the petitioners in Petitions Nos.
PATANJALI SASTRI J. These three petitions have been pre sented to this Court under article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of writs in the nature of habeas companypus for release of the petitioners who are respectively the President, VicePresident and Secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha of the Delhi State.
The following judgments were deliv ered.
3 1950 S.C.R. 88.
32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of writs in the nature of habeas companypus.
Given under my seal and signature.
