Shivdayal, J., declared cl.
19 1 d e of the Constitution of India and that the order was dis criminatory, illegal and violated principles of natural justice.
i of the order companyld lawfully be made by the State, but.
Against the order of the High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh has appealed to this Court.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 4, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
The respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Arts.
b c of s. 3 1 of the Act were invalid because they companytravened the fundamental freedom of movement guaranteed under Art.
ii iii of the order were invalid.
In the view of the learned Judge the provisions of s. 3 1 a of the Act were valid and therefore the directions companytained in cl.
28 of 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sen, and I N. Shroff, for the appellants.
19 of the Constitution, and therefore the directions companytained in cls.
The respondent did number appear.
1066 of 1965.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. On April 24, 1963, the State of Madhya Pradesh made an order in exercise of powers companyferred by s. 3 of the Mad Pradesh Public Security Act, 1959 hereinafter called the actdirecting the respondent Thakur Bharat Singh that he shall number be in any place in the Raipur district that he shall reside in the municipal limits of Jhabua town, district Jhabua, Madhya Pradesh, and shall proceed there, immediately on the receipt of this order and that he shall numberify his movements and report himself personally every day at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. to the Police Station Officer, Jhabua.
Against the order passed by Shivdayal, J., two appeals were filed under the Letters Patent of the High Court.
i of the order valid, and declared cls.
ii and iii invalid.
