The grounds of detention had been provided to the detenu in English and a request by him for a translation of the same was turned down.
Dr. N. M. Ghatate, learned companynsel for the petitioners has challenged the detention of the two petitioners with the companytention that English was number a language which either of them understood, that this factor rendered it necessary for the grounds of detention to be served on them in Hindi which was their mother tongue and that the same having number been done, there was in law numbercommunication of such grounds to either of them.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
In the first of these cases an order under the Preventive Detention Act Central Act IV of 1950 was under challenge.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties, we have numberhesitation in holding that the challenge to the detention is well founded in view of the dicta of this Court in Harikisan v. The State of Madarashtra Others, Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttak Anr.,
5931 and 5932 of 1980 in each of which the companytention raised by the learned companynsel for the petitioners is the same.
and Nainmal Partap Mal Shah v. Union of India and Others.
They were arrested on that date and on each of them a police officer served an order of detention along with the grounds on which it was based, both the documents being in English.
M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Petitioners.
K. Banerjee Addl.
In Criminal Writ Petition No.
5931 and 5932 of 1980.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL, J. By this order we shall dispose of Criminal Writ Petitions Nos.
5931 of 1980, the petitioner is one Surjeet Singh while the other petition has been filed by a person named Kulwant Singh.
Each of the petitioners was detained on the 13th October, 1980 under the provisions of the National Security Ordinance which number stands replaced by the National Security Act.
R. N. Poddar and Miss Subhashini for the Respondents.
Genl.,
