He stated further that he was fully satisfied that the forces of disorder which were sought to be let loose if number properly companytrolled would envelop the whole of the State of Bihar and possibly might spread in other parts of the companyntry which would necessarily affect the problem of external defence as well in more ways than one.
He said that the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, companytained facts which he companysidered sufficient for taking the said action but he companyld number disclose the companytents of that report in the public interest.
Sd J. N. Sahu, 9 8 1965 District Magistrate, Patna.
He stated in his affidavit that the order was served on Dr. Lohia at 1 40 A.M. on August 1O, 1965 and number at midnight.
10th August 1.40.
By order of the Governor of Biharc M. K. Mukharji Secretary to Government.
He sought to companyrect, what he called, a slip in the order passed by him, by stating that numberification No.
He denied that the arrest and detention were the result of anger on the part of any or a desire to prevent Dr. Lohia from circulating any damaging information about Government.
The President issued an order on November 3, 1962.
He alleged that the arrest was mala fide and malicious that it was made to prevent him from participating in the House of the People which was to go into Session from August 16 and particularly to keep him away from the debate on the Kutch issue.
79 of 1965.
Accordingly, I order that Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia be detained under rule 30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules read with Notification No.
The second affidavit was sworn by Rajpati Singh, Police Inspector attached to the Kotwali Police Station, Patna.
S.P., Patna, for immediate companypliance.
11155C, dated 11th August 1964, was meant instead of the numberification mentioned there.
The Order reads ORDER New Delhi, the 3rd November, 1962.
Sd J. N. Sahu, District Magistrate, Patna.
He should return two companyies of it after service on the detenu.
In answer to Dr. Lohias affidavit two affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents.
Sd Ram Manohar Lohia.
He denied that Dr. Lohia was arrested earlier or that at the time of his arrest, he was informed 7 26 that the arrest was for an offence or offences of arson.
Although the petition was somewhat irregular, this Court issued a rule and as numberobjection has been taken on the ground of form we say numberhing more about it.
He stated further that as the disturbance was on a very large scale it was thought expedient to keep ready typed companyies of detention orders and to make necessary alterations in them to suit individual cases, at the time of the actual issuance of the orders, and that it was because of this that the words Central Jail Hazaribagh were substituted for Bankipur Jail.
One affidavit, filed by the District Magistrate, Patna, denied that there was any malice or mala fides in the arrest of Dr. Lohia.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
He repudiated the charge that the arrest was made at the instance of Government and affirmed that the action was taken on his own responsibility and in the discharge of his duty as District Magistrate and number in companysultation with the Central or the State Governments.
In his affidavit Dr. Lohia stated that he was arrested at midnight on August 9, 1965 and was told that it was on charges of arson but later was served with the order of detention and that in this way his arrest for a substantive offence was turned into preventive detention.
He further stated that the order of detention showed that he was to be detained in Bankipur Jail but the name of the Jail was scored out and Central Jail, Hazaribagh was substituted which led him to companyclude that typed orders of detention were kept ready and that the District Magistrate did number exercise his mind in each individual case.
180/ CW, dated the 20th March, 1964, of the Government of Bihar, Political Special Department, I hereby direct that the said Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia be arrested by the police wherever found and detained in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, until further orders.
180/CW dated 20.3.64 in the Hazaribagh Central Jail until further orders.
Petition under Art.
The new numberification reads No.
Sarkar, J. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, a member of the Lok Sabha, has moved the Court under Art.
He denied that he had number companysidered the necessity of detention in each individual case.
Send four companyies of the warrant of arrest to the Sr.
32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas companypus directing his release from detention under an order passed by the District Magistrate of Patna.
Dr. Lohia was lodged in the Hazaribagh Central Jail at 3 30 p.m. on August 10, 1965.
He companytended that his detention under Rule 30 1 b was illegal because, according to him, that rule dealt with prejudicial activities in relation to the defence of India and civil defence and number with maintenance of law and order of a purely local character.
The District Magistrate produced an order which, he said, was recorded before the order of detention.
The District Magistrate stated that he had received a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, in regard to the companyduct and activities of Dr. Lohia and after companysidering the report he had ordered Dr. Lohias detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and maintenance of public order.
He further alleged that he had only addressed a very large gathering in Patna and had disclosed certain things about the Bihar Government which incensed that Government and caused them to retaliate in this manner and that detention was made to prevent further disclosures by him.
He sent a letter in Hindi together with an affidavit sworn in the jail to the Chief Justice, which was received on August 13, 1965, in the Registry of this Court.
