Meanwhile the State Government passed an order on June 16, 1955, directing that the respondent shall, except in so far as he may be permitted by the second appellant from time to time, number remain in any place in Chhindwara District.
Adhikari, Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh, B. K. B. Naidu and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
The respondent appealed to appellant 1 to cancel the order passed against him.
It was subsequently amended and the amended Act came into force on November 24, 1950.
Whilst the second proclamation was in force the second appellant received reports from the District Superintendent of Police, Chhindwara, against the respondent, and he ordered the issue of a numberice to him to show cause why action should number be taken against him under s. 4 this numberice required the respondent to appear before the second appellant on April 29, 1955.
It is the companyrectness of this companyclusion which is challenged before us by the appellants.
This proclamation was to remain in force till August 8, 1955.
4 and 4 A of the Act are invalid, and since the two sections companytain the main operative provisions of the Act, according to the High Court, the whole Act became invalid.
226 challenging the validity of the said orders, inter alia, on the ground that the Act under which the said orders were passed was itself ultra vires.
Thereupon the second appellant sent a report to appellant 1 on April 30, 1955, and submitted the case against him with a draft order for the approval of the said appellant under the first pro viso to s. 4 1 .
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 2, 1955, of the former Nagpur High Court in Misc.
The case was then fixed for hearing on June 22, 1955.
In the meantime the third numberification was issued by appellant 1.
The respondent appeared in person on May 30, 1955, and was given time to file his written statement which he did on June 4, 1955.
This proclamation was renewed in November, 1954 and February, 1955.
Patnaik, for the respondent.
The respondent then fileda writ petition in the High Court No.
Thereafter on May 9, 1955, appellant 1 issued afresh proclamation specifying the whole of the Chhindwara District as the proclaimed area.
The second appellant then issued a fresh numberice against the respondent under s. 4 on May 24, 1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
249 of 1955.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.
271 of 1956.
A day before this order was passed the respondent filed his writ petition in the High Court from which the present appeal, arises.
On June 22, 1955, the second appellant companymunicated the said order to the respondent and directed him to leave the District before 10 a. m. on June 23, 1955.
Petition No.
Subsequently the District Magistrate, Chhindwara, appellant 2, passed another order dated June 22, 1955, companymunicating to the respondent the first externment order passed against him.
October 3.
The Act was passed in 1946 and came into force on September 7, 1946.
The respondent, though served, did number appear before the second appellant.
132 1 of the Constitution raises a question about the validity of the Central Provinces and Berar Goondas Act X of 1946 as amended by Madhya Pradesh Act XLIX of 1950.
J. This appeal with a certificate issued by the Nagpur High Court under Art.
It appears that against the respondent Baldeo Prasad the State of Madhya Pradesh, appellant 1, passed an order on June 16, 1955, under s. 4 A of the Act.
This order was to remain in force until August 8, 1955.
The first appellant treated the appeal as a representation made by the respondent under s. 6 and rejected it on July 9, 1955.
249 of 1955 under Art.
