DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-6-15
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on June 11,1952

DEVI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LIVERSIDGE V. ANDERSON [REFERRED TO]
KESHAV TALPADE V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
DURGADAS V. REX [REFERRED TO]
INDER PRAKASH V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
FAIYAZ ALI V. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
RAJDHAR KALU PATIL [REFERRED TO]
MACHINDAR SHIVAJI V. KING [REFERRED TO]
ANANT MAHADEV [REFERRED TO]
A K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS OPPOSITE PARTY; UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. ATAMA RAM SHRIDHAR VAIDYA [REFERRED TO]
ASHA RAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
M R S MANI VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [REFERRED TO]
BHAURAO KARBHARI AWARE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
EMPEROR VS. SUMER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAM BILAS GUPTA VS. REX [REFERRED TO]
NEK MOHAMMAD VS. PROVINCE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DURG SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1952-11-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sharma, J. - (1.)These are two applications, one by Shri Devi Singh of Mandawa and the other by Shri Gordhan Singh of village Chirana under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued or passed directing the State of Rajasthan to produce the person of the two-petitioners before this Court, and that the petitioners be set at liberty. Rules nisi were issued in both the cases--in the case of Devi Singh (hereinafter to be called the first petitioner) on the 2nd of June 1952, and in the case of Gordhan Singh (hereinafter to be called the second petitioner) on the 4th of June 1952. Both the cases are substantially similar, and therefore I consider it convenient to dispose them of by this single judgment.
(2.)The case of the first petitioner is that he is the only son and would-be successor of Shri Thakur Jaisinghjj of Mandawa, who is a prominent landholder of Sheikhawati Pargana in Jaipur Division. He has been returned as a member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Udaipur constituency of Jhunjhunu District in the last general elections on the ticket of Ram Rajya Parishad party, which is in opposition to the Congress. On account of his political activities, he was an eye-sore to the Congress leaders, who. on account of loss of quite a large number of seats in the last general elections, have been on the look out to find out some excuse to crush the Jagirdars of Rajasthan. With a view to win the support of the tenantry by rough and cheap methods and also to create class-hatred against the Jagirdars, the Congress Government reduced the kind rent to one-sixth of the gross produce. The petitioner was arrested at Jaipur on the 19th of May 1952, on a warrant alleged to have been issued by Mr. B. N. Tankha, Collector and District Magistrate, Jhunjhunu, on the ground of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and the maintenance of public order. Soon after the arrest, grounds of detention were served on the petitioner in jail. The order about arrest & detention was not passed by the District Magistrate at Jhunjhunu, where he is posted, but at Jaipur, under the pressure of the Members of the Cabinet, Chief and Home Secretaries of the Rajas-than Government, and the Congress leaders, and was not the result of mental satisfaction of the District Magistrate himself. The order of detention is alleged to be a fabricated document. It has been stated that the grounds furnished to the petitioner are unfounded and are vague, which defeat the right of the petitioner of making an effective representation and some of the grounds are such as do not even bear any relation to any of the two objects mentioned in the order of detention. On these grounds it has been prayed that the petitioner be released from detention forthwith.
(3.)In the case of the second petitioner also substantially the same grounds have been taken as have been taken by the first petitioner. It is added that as a matter of fact this petitioner was never served with an order of detention, nor was it ever disclosed to him why he was arrested. Both the petitioners allege that the action of the District Magistrate is mala fide.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.