He also denied that he had advocated in any meeting for the formation of a militia, as alleged.
Your action above is bound to result in the maintenance of public order being prejudicially affected.
which, by its order dated January 8, 1958, discharged the Rule.
Now therefore in exercise of the Powers companyferred by Section 3 2 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 IV of 1950 1 made this order directing that the said Sri Ram Prasad Das be detained.
You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of power companyferred by Section 3 2 c of the P.D. Act 1950 Act IV of 1950 on the ground that you are acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, as evidenced by the particulars given below That on 13 9 58 you attended a meeting of Eastern Indian Refugee Council held at the Refugee office at 6 Murlidhar Sen Lane and vilified Prime Minister of India for his allegedly turning a deaf ear to the untold miseries of the refugees and while referring to the recent agreement between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan you vented feelings of violence against the Prime Minister of India by emphasising that in order to save the refugees and the territories of the Indian Union, Sri Nehru should be murdered, if necessary and so the need of another Nathuram Godse was felt number.
You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secy.
491 and 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a friend, on behalf on the petitioner, in detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail in 24 Parganas, under the orders of the Government of West Bengal.
Office of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta.
1 aforesaid, as totally false, and stated that there was numbermeeting, as alleged, on September 13, 1958, and that he had number made any speech attributed to him in the said ground.
You are also informed that u s 10 of the P.D. Act 1950 IV of 1950 the Advisory Board shall, if you desire to be heard hear you in person and that if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government.
That you intend to proceed to Delhi on 9 10 58 and that you are likely to instigate plans which may adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India.
The High Court also pointed out that there was numberambiguity in the recitals, including these in para.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court Guha Roy and H. K. Sen, JJ. ,
85 dated October 8, 1958, quoted above, was number a ground but only a piece of evidence out of several such pieces of evidence on which the ground of detention was based.
The order is in these terms ORDER Dated 7 10 58.
In the companyrse of its judgment, the High Court made the following observations On a reading of the order however, it is quite clear to us that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 do number state the grounds of the order.
rouse passions by alleging that the Indian Prime Minister had numbersympathy for West Bengal.
IV, of 1950 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
4 aforesaid, was number by itself a ground of the order, but merely an inference of fact which had some bearing on the ground of the order.
4 of the detention order No.
Sd Illegible, Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, On or about October 11, 1958, the petitioner was served with another order which is in these terms Government of West Bengal.
That is how this appeal has companye to this Court.
On or about October 8, 1958, the petitioner was served, in the Dum Dum Central Jail, with a further order, being Order No.
3 in the case In the aforesaid affidavit, the deponent averrred that he was satisfied on the records and materials placed before him that the petitioner was a person likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that with a view to preventing him from doing so, it was necessary to make the order of detention on the grounds mentioned in the Order No.
of West Bengal.
83 dated October 7, 1958, purporting to have been made by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act No.
It was further pointed out that para.
He further asserted that the order of detention passed against him, was a clear case of political victimisation.
On those allegations, the petitioner submitted to the High Court that the orders aforesaid, relating to his detention in the Dum Dum Central Jail, were illegal, invalid, ultra vires, void and inoperative.
You also tried to.
Sd Illegible, Commissioner of Police, Calcutta.
Sd Illegible, Dy.
An affidavit in opposition, on behalf of the State of West Bengal and other opposite parties, was sworn to by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta opposite party No.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated the January 8, 1959, of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Misc.
being Order No.
He also claimed to be a leader of the refugees, and as such, had been relentlessly criticising the policies of the present Government.
That on 26 9 58 you attended another meeting of the South Durtolla Branch of the Jana Sangha at Jatin Mitter Park, where you denounced the aforesaid agreement between the two Prime Ministers and stressed the need of forming a militia with the youths of the companyntry for the safety of the people living in border areas and urged all to enrol themselves for the said purpose.
Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Sri Ram Prasad as, son of late Bepin Behari Das of Village P S P Dist.
He also averred that the orders of detention aforesaid, together with the grounds and all other relevant particulars, were reported by him to the Government of West Bengal, which, after duly companysidering the same, duly approved of the orders of detention.
He also alleged that he was a member of a political party opposed to the party in power, and held definitely pronounced views about the failure of the Government to tackle the problem of refugees, as also about the relationship between the Government and the State of Pakistan.
51 OF 1959.
On or about October 7, 1958, towards evening, when the petitioner was companying out of the Basanta Cabin, a tea stall, at the crossing of the College Street and Surya Sen Street, after having addressed a meeting at the College Square, he was stopped on the street by the police and was taken to the office of the Special Branch Police on Lord Sinha Road.
He also stated that he denied all statements of facts to the companytrary, companytained in the affidavit in support of the petition, and he undertook to produce the original records in the Court at the hearing.
The petitioner moved the Calcutta High Court for a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court.
The Commissioner of Police further stated in the affidavit that he had duly passed and signed the orders of detention after companysidering the records and materials in respect of the petitioner, in exercise of the powers companyferred under the Act, bona fide and without any malice whatsoever, on being satisfied about the necessity of the said orders of detention.
1882 H. S. In exercise of the power companyferred by Section 3 2 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 IV of 1950 , the Governor is pleased to approve order No.
On November 28, 1958, the petitioner was brought to the Writers Buildings in Calcutta, and placed before the Advisory Board as companystituted under the Act.
4 aforesaid, was number a ground of detention but only one of the items of evidence in support of the ground, raised a serious question to be determined by this Court, particularly because a view companytrary to the one taken by the High Court in the instant case, appeared to have been taken by this Court and by the Calcutta High Court itself in a number of decisions.
Secty.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
85 dated October 8, 1958 set out above .
To Sri Rain Prasad Das S O Bepin Behari Das, of 6, Muralidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta.
Order Calcutta, 11 10 58.
Hence, the High Court, on a companystruction of s. 3 of the Act, came to the companyclusion that the grounds of detention in respect of the petitioner, were number vague, and that the statement in para.
The petitioner was heard in person by the Advisory Board on that date, and on the next day, that is, November 29, 1958, after the hearing by the Advisory Board, another order, being order No.
He alleged further that the order of detention, on the face of it, was malafide, and was a clear infringement of his fundamental right to freedom of speech and association, guaranteed by the Constitution.
Grounds for detention under clause ii of clause a of Sub section 1 of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 Act IV of 1950 .
to the Govt.
AND PETITION No.
He denied that he indulged in any violent speeches, or that he tried to rouse passions.
It was also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner personally appeared before the Advisory Board on November 28, 1958, and the Advisory Board, upon a companysideration of the records and materials placed before it, and the representation made by the petitioner, and after hearing the petitioner in person, reported to the Government of West Bengal that in the opinion of the Advisory Board, there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
The application was made to the Calcutta High Court on the following allegations The peti tioner is the Secretary of the West Bengal Committee of the Bharatiya Jana Sangha, one of the four big political parties, as recognized by the Election Commission of India.
It appears that Naresh Chandra Ganguli, an advocate, practising in the Calcutta High Court, made an application under ss.
of the Jail in which you are detained as early as possible.
Home Department, Special Section.
Hence, both the matters, relating as they do, to the same subject matter, have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.
1967 H. S., dated November 29, 1958, made by the Governor of West Bengal, was issued, companyfirming the aforesaid order of detention No.
That in companyrse of discussion with members of your party on 17 9 58 at 6, Murlidhar Sen Lane, you stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made a Present of certain Indian enclaves to Pakistan in pursuance of the policy of appeasement which has been initiated by the Late Mahatma Gandhi and called upon the members to build uP strong movement against the implementation of Nehru Noon Pact.
But he claimed that he had a right to express his views about the policy of the Government or the Prime Minister, relating to Pakistan and or about Nehru Noon Pact or similar other Agreements.
From there, he was sent to the Dum Dum Central Jail, where he was served with an order.
Home Special Department, Government of West Bengal, and forwarded through the Supt.
His further companytention was that the ground No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This appeal, on a certificate of fitness granted by the Calcutta High Court, is directed against the order of that Court, dated January, 8, 1959, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
Given under my hand and seal of office.
85 dated October 8, 1958, which is as follows Government of West Bengal.
83 dated October 7, 1958, set out above, and companytinuing the petitioners detention till the expiration of 12 months from the date of detention.
Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant and petitioner.
and of 6, Murlidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order it is necessary so to do.
Dated 8 10 58.
May 20.
59 of 1959.
This Court, by an order dated April 20, 1959, directed that the application of the petitioner under Art.
The petitioner made a representation in writing against the order of detention aforesaid, denying and refuting the grounds of his detention, set out above.
126 of 1958.
In his application to the High Court, the petitioner also submitted that the grounds supplied to him, had numberrational companynection with the objects mentioned in s. 3 of the Act, and that, therefore, he was deprived of his right to make an effective representation.
126 of 1958, refusing to issue a writ in the nature of habeas companypus in respect of one Ram Prasad Das who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner .
83 dated the 7 10 58 made under Section 3 2 of the said Act by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta directing that Sri Ram Prasad Das son of Late Bepin Behari Das of 6, Murlidhar Sen Lane, Calcutta be detained.
4 was extremely vague in the absence of any particulars about how, where and when and in what manner, he was likely to instigate any plan which was to adversely affect the personal security of the Prime Minister of India, and the nature or particulars of any such companytemplated plan.
Besides preferring the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner moved this Court under Art.
Sen and P. K. Bose, for the respondents.
In other words, the grounds for making an order of detention, which have to be companymunicated to the detenu as soon as practicable, are companyclusions of facts, and are number a companyplete recital of all the relevant facts.
By order of the Governor.
Allegations of victimisation on political grounds, and that the order of detention was mala fide and in infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner, were specifically denied.
He particularly denied the allegation companytained in ground No.
