This power was made subject to the fresh order being made where fresh facts may have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry which companyld lead to the satisfaction of the detaining authority that a fresh order was needed.
3rd January, 1968, the service of the grounds was within the period laid down in Section 8 1 .
In this letter, according to him, it was stated that the grounds of detention were delivered to the detenus companycerned on the 12th January, 1968.
These two provisions of the Preventive Detention Act were interpreted by this Court in Hadibandhu Das v. District Magistrate, Cuttack .
Section 13 1 of the Act laid down the maximum period for which a person may be detained m pursuance of any detention order as two years from the date of detention.
According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, the detention order dated 3rd January, 1968 became effective on 10th January, 1968, and the grounds of detention were served on 12th January, 1968, so that, even if the period of 10 days is companynted from the date of the order, viz.,
That order was passed on the 20th August, 1969.
This companytinued detention under the order dated 20th August, 1969, has been challenged on the ground that such an order companyld number be validly made by the State Government in view of the provisions of Section 14 2 of the Act.
13 of 1964 as amended by the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Amendment Act No.
These provisions companytained in Sections 13 1 and 14 2 of the Act are very similar to the provisions companytained in Section 11 A 1 and Section 18 2 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
Then, Section 14 2 removed the bar against the Government making a fresh order of detention on revocation or expiry of a detention order.
During the pendency of this petition, the order of 3rd January, 1968 in respect of Mohd.
Shafi, on the other hand, filed a companynter affidavit alleging that the grounds of detention were number served on him on 12th January, 1968 but were served much later.
Yaqub was in jail under detention and there is numbersuggestion that any of his activities in jail companyld companystitute such fresh facts justifying a fresh order.In view of this new affidavit filed by Mohd.
If the original letter had been produced, it would have shown when the grounds were actually companymunicated and acknowledgment of the companymunication was taken from Mohd.
So far as Mohd.
Thus, numberone on behalf of the State Government has companye forward to swear in an affidavit that the grounds of detention were actually served in his presence or by himself on Mohd.
Shafi on 12th January, 1968.
Shafi is companytinuing under Detention even number under that order of 3rd January, 1968, while, in the case of Mohd.
Consequently, in the case of Mohd.
Their affidavits disclose that information was sent from the Jammu Jail to the Secretariat on the 2nd April, 1968, giving intimation that the grounds of detention had been served on Mohd.
Shafi on 12th January, 1968.
This order followed the revocation of the earlier order dated 3rd January, 1968, which was in force and in pursuance of which he was kept in detention up to 25th August, 1969.
Shafi.
Shafi on 12th January, 1968.
Yaqub having been revoked and a fresh order having been served on him on the 25th August, 1969, Mohd.
Yaqub, that order was revoked and a fresh order of detention was served on him on the 25th August, 1969.
Both the petitioners challenged their detention in this writ petition on the ground that their detention under the orders dated 3rd January, 1968 bad become illegal.
8 of 1967 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Government was also directed to produce the relevant records of the Secretariat and the Jail for perusal of the Court.
The circumstance that intimation of the service was sent as late as 2nd April, 1968, by the jail authorities to the Government lends companysiderable strength to the assertion made by Mohd.
Two rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
Dina Nath, the retired Deputy Superintendent of the Jail has number stated on oath that he himself served the grounds on Mohd.
All he says is that on 12th Januaury, 1968 when the companyies of grounds of detention were served upon various detenus, the duplicates in respect of them were with the jail authorities and on the basis of the said duplicates, he prepared the letter dated the 2nd April, 1968, addressing it to the Secretary to Government.
As against this, there is the definite statement in the affidavit of Mohd.
On that number compliance, the detention of Mohd.
Yaqub filed a supplementary affidavit to challenge his detention under this later order.
In January, 1963, when the President issued the numberification terminating the Emergency so that the Defence of India Rules became ineffective, steps were taken to detain both these petitioners under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act No.
Shafi challenged the validity of his detention order primarily on the ground that the grounds of detention were number served on him within the period of 10 days laid down by Section 8 1 of the Act.
Shafi, an opportunity was given to the State Government to file rejoinder affidavits bringing to the numberice of the Court the companyrect facts about service of the grounds of detention on him.
Shafi and Mohd.
These affidavits are by Dina Nath, retired Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Jammu, who was occupying that post at the relevant time, and by Girdhari Lal Aima, Head Assistant, Home Department Internal Security Section , Jammu and Kashmir Government, Srinagar.
In both cases, the orders of detention were passed on the 3rd January, 1968 and these were served on the detenus.
Shafi under the order dated 3rd January, 1968 became illegal, so that he is entitled to be set at liberty.
On the face of it, numbersuch grounds companyld possibly companye into existence, because Mohd.
Both these petitioners were originally detained under the Defence of India Rules.
If the grounds were served on 12th January, 1968, there is numberreason why immediate intimation of that service was number sent to the Government soon after the 12th January, 1968.
Yaqub.
Yaqub is companycerned, similar grounds were taken by him also to challenge his detention order dated 3rd January, 1968, but those grounds have number become immaterial in view of the fact that, at present, he is being detained under the order of detention served on him on 25th August 1969.
Shafi that the grounds were number served on him on 12th January, 1968.
Bhargava, J. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, there are number two petitioners before us Mohd.
Yaqub, a valid fresh order of detention companyld have been passed in August, 1.969, only if that order was based on fresh facts which came into existence after the order dated 3rd January, 1968, was revoked.
