1 When a person is de tained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, companymunicate to him the grounds on which the order his been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representa tion against the order, in a case where such order has been made by the Central Government, to that Government, and in a case where it has been made by a State Government or an officer subordinate thereto, to the State Government.
In two out of the three criminal cases the trial before the magistrate ended on February 23, 1949, and the petitioner was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months in each of the cases.
On 25th February, 1950, the Preventive Detention Act was passed by the Parliament and on the 1st of March follow ing, the the detention of the applicant under the Madras Maintainance of Public Order Act was cancelled and he was served with a fresh order of detention under section 3 1 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950.
The petitioner made a fresh application to the High Court praying for a writ of habeas companypus in respect of his detention under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act and this application, which was heard after he had served out his sentences of imprisonment referred to above, was dismissed in January, 1950.
KANIA C. J This is a petition by the applicant under article 32 1 of the Constitution of India for a writ of habeas companypus against his detention in the Madras Jail.
In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in Rs opinion suffcient cause for the detention of the person companycerned, the Central Government or the State Government.
As re gards the third case, he was tried by the Sessions Judge of North Malabar and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years but this sentence was reduced to 6 months imprison ment by the Madras High Court on appeal.
While these criminal cases were going on, he was served with an order of deten tion under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act on 22nd April, 1948.
K. Nambiar S. K. Aiyar and V.G. Rao, with him for the petitioner.
This order of detention was held to be illegal by the Madras High Court, but on the same day that the judgment was pronounced, a second order of detention was served upon him.
While he was tires under detention under one of the orders of the Madras State Government, on the 1st of March, 1950, he was served with an order made under section 3 1 of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950.
Rajah Aiyar, Advocate General of Madras C. R. Pattabi Raman and R. Ganapathi, with him lot the State of Madras.
On his moving the High Court again for a writ of habeas companypus in respect to the subsequent order, his application was dismissed on the ground that as he was number granted bail in one of the three criminal cases that were pending against him, the detention companyld number be said to be unlawful.
Confirmation of detention order.
Under the ordi nary Criminal Law he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment but those companyvictions were set aside.
Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed to persons affected by the order.
as the case may be, may companyfirm the detention order and companytinue the detention of the person companycerned for such period as it thinks fit.
May 19.
In the petition he has given various dates showing how he has been under detention since December, 1947.
The following Judgments were delivered.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India Jindralal, with him for the Union of India.
The petitioner, it is said, was initially arrested in Malabar on 17th of December, 1947, and prosecution was started against him on various charges for having delivered certain violent speeches.
Liberty, however, was given to him to renew his application if and when his detention under the criminal proceedings ceased.
