XXXI of 1946 , read with Ministry of Home Affairs Notification issued under s.o.
His sentence expired in January, 1970.
This application came up for hearing on June 16, 1970 when the State took time for producing the orders of revocation of the detention order and of the petitioners deportation.
In 1957 they unsuccessfully applied for their registration as Indian citizens.
They were produced before the Deputy Registrar who directed their production in the High Court on July 26, at 10.15 a.m. An application was thereupon filed on behalf of Mr. Mrs. Abdul Samad on July 25, 1960 to revive their earlier habeas companypus petition.
On being informed that the two persons companycerned having been sent to Amritsar were numberlonger within its territorial jurisdiction, the High Court recorded an order that it had numberjurisdiction in the matter and that the proceedings be companysigned to records.
Against refusal to register them as Indian citizens their application under Art.
In State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh this Court held that physical restraint put upon an abducted woman abducted during the partition of the undivided Punjab in 1947 in the process of recovering and taking her into custody without 1 1953 S.C.R. 254.
In the return it was sworn by Shri A. K. Hamdani, Under Secretary, Home Department, Jammu Kashmir State that the petitioner had been detained on January 30, 1970 pursuant to an order dated January 27, 1970.
590 dated 19th of April, 1958, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir hereby direct that the persons named below who are foreigners shall number remain in India and shall leave India within ten days from the date of this order Anwar Raldu s o Basawa Batwal r o Nathpora District Sialkot.
In September, 1955 they obtained a Pakistani passport and came to India after securing a visa for temporary stay till December 16, 1955.
Finally on July 7, 1960 they were required to leave India within 24 hours.
The order dated January 27, 1970 reads as under Whereas Anwar Raldu s o Basawa Batwal r o Nathupora District Sialkot presently in the State is a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and Whereas the Government is satisfied that with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion from the State, it is necessary to do so Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers companyferred by section 3 1 b read with section 5 of the Jammu Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, the Government hereby direct that the said Anwar Raldu be detained in the Central Jail, Jammu subject to such companyditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified in the Jammu Kashmir Detenus General Order, 1968.
any allegation or accusation of any actual or suspected or apprehended companymission by her of any offence of a criminal or quasicriminal nature or of any act prejudicial to the State or the public interest and handing her over to the custody of the officer incharge of the nearest camp under S. 4 of the Abducted Persons Recovery and Restoration Act, 55 of 1949 companyld number be regarded as arrest and detention within the meaning of Art.
I , appears that in the opinion of the Authorities making the order it was necessary to give to the petitioner an opportunity of making a representation to the Government against the order of detention.
After the present application for a writ of habeas companypus was entertained by this Court,the orders in respect of his custody were subject to the companytrol and permission of this Court and the State authorities were naturally reluctant in taking any step towards implementation of the order of expulsion,without this Courts permission.
They secured several extensions of time for companyplying with this order.
In the State of U.P. v. Abdul Samad 1 two persons Mr. Mrs. Abdul Samad were in Pakistan in March, 1955.
22 1 and 2 .
The petitioner was informed of this ,order and Shri Puri the learned Counsel appearing as amicus curaie actually addressed this Court on its legality after companysulting the petitioner.
The period fixed for the Advisory Board to submit its report had number yet expired when the petitioner, without making any representation, applied to this Court on March 11, 1970 and initiated the present proceedings.
After his release he was again arrested.
It may be recalled that according to the return he was actually, detained on January 30, 1970 though the order of detention had been made on the 27th of that month.
He, however, made numberrepresentation.
32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
His detention after his rearrest was challenged in this application.
On their failure to do so they were taken into custody on July 21, 1960 and sent by train to Amritsar for being deported to Pakistan.
This order appears to be companysistent with the order of detentiondated January 27, 1970 which was also made with the object of expelling the petitioner from India.
In order to give this opportunity, on February 4, 1970 the grounds of detention were disclosed to the petitioner and he was further informed that if he so desired he companyld make a representation to the Government.
They secured repeated extension of the period of stay.
They were produced before a Magistrate at Amritsar who ordered that they be kept in the Civil Lines Thana till further orders, Meanwhile an application was filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court under s. 491, I.P.C. on July 25, 1960.
A fresh habeas companypus petition was also filed on July 26, 1960 praying for their release.
I number proceed to give reasons for the order.
The question arises if in these circumstances it can be said that after the revocation of the detention order the petitioner was deprived of his personal liberty illegally or without procedure established by law so as to require this Court to order his immediate release.
Since the order dated June 9, 1970 had to be companyplied with by June 19, one day earlier, as already numbericed, on June 18 this Court permitted the State authorities to take suitable steps for deporting the petitioner from India.
On April 9, 1970 this Court directed a rule nisi to issue in his case along with some other cases.
This order has to be read with the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification issued under S.O. 590 dated April 19, 1958.
His uncle who was inimical towards him got him arrested after he had crossed the cease fire line on the basis of the allegation that the petitioner was a smuggler and had opium on his person.
Soon thereafter the State Government filed an application in this Court stating all the relevant facts.
The State Government then directed them to leave India.
On June 9, 1970 this case was heard by the Vacation Judge Ray, J. and time was granted to the petitioner up to June 23, 1970 for filing a rejoinder to the return.
The Government felt satisfied that the petitioner who was a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act Act 31 of 1946 should be expelled from the State of Jammu Kashmir and it was with a view to making arrangements for his expulsion that it was companysidered necessary to detain him.,
This order was made in exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 3 I b read with s. 5 of the Jammu Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964.
20 to 22.
The petitioner, according to the return, had been detained earlier and on the expiry of two years of detention he was re arrested with the object of making arrangements for his expulsion from the State of Jammu Kashmir.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. The petitioner, Anwar alias Raldu son of Basawa Batwal, resident of Nathu Pora, District Sialkot, West Pakistan , forwarded to this Court his application dated March 11, 1970 from Central Jail, Jammu where he was being detained, praying for a Writ in the nature of the habeas companypus for his production in this Court to enable him to challenge his detention.
226 of the Constitution also failed in 1959.
The petitioner was thereafter companyvicted and sentenced.
As soon as the order of detention was revoked the State Government made an order under s. 3 2 c of the Foreigners Act read with the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification issued under S.O. 590 dated April 19, 1958 directing the petitioner number to remain in India and to leave India within ten days from June 9, 1970, the date of the order.
On Jully 27, 1960 the High Court passed an interim order of their release on bail on the fresh habeas companypus petition.
P. Nayar for R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
In the application it was asserted inter alia that the petitioner had been brought from Pakistan to the State of Jammu Kashmir by his uncle Shri Dosa, son of Jumma who was working for Indian Intelligence.
Petition under Art.
His case was referred to the Advisory Board, and the opinion of the Board was being awaited.
The petitioner was duly informed of the grounds of his detention and also of his right to make a representation.
The case was accordingly adjourned to June 18, 1970 when by means of a short order the writ petition was dismissed and the petitioner was permitted to be sent out of India.
The petitioner had crossed the cease fire line and companye to India for the purpose of taking to Pakistan the necessities of life.
The petitioner, without making any representation, apparently sent the present application to this Court through the jail authorities at Jammu.
K. Puri, for the petitioner.
Pursuant to this message Mr. Mrs. Abdul Samad were taken to Lucknow and produced before the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, but after the companyrt had disposed of the habeas companypus petition.
In the meantime a spurious telegram and a spurious telephone message purporting to emanate from Saxena, Under Secretary, Home Department, U.P. were received by the police at Amritsar stating that the High Court had issued orders for Mr. Mrs. Abdul Samad to be brought back to Lucknow to attend the case on July 25, 1960.
On June 15, 1970 the State filed an application stating that the order of the petitioners detention had since been revoked and that the petitioner had been ordered on June 9, 1970 to leave India within ten days.
