HANUMAN SAHAI CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition of Hanuman Sahai raises a short question of law whether the impugned order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jaipur on 28th of August, 1974, on the grounds which formed the basis for an earlier detention order quashed by this Court on 17th of August, 1974, on the ground that it had become invalid because of the contravention of the mandate contained in the provisions of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution is maintainable under Section 14 (2) of the Maintenance, of Internal Security Act, lint. (hereinaftercalled the Act)?

(2.) THIS question arises like this: The petitioner as detained by the District Magistrate, Jaipur under Section 3 of the Act oh 29th April, 1974 end lodged11 Central Jail, Jaipur. That detention order was, challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the order ox de- , tention should be quashed because the Government failed to comply with, the mandate of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution inasmuch as the Government did not consider the representation filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as pos-r sible. This Court, after hearing both the parties, quashed the detention order dated 27th of April, 1974 and ordered that tfce petitioner be released forthwith. It U alleged that instead of releasing the petitioner from jail he was handed over to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur in contf* pliance with a warrant issued by him in certain criminal case filed against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act. There remands were granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Before the period of third remand expired, the District Magistrate issued the impugned order on 28th of August, 1974, which- is Annexure 'a' on the record. The grounds of detention were served on the petitioner in jail. The petitioner made a representation to the Government on 8th oi'septtember, 1974, wherein the impugned order was challenged by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the District Magistrate was not competent to pass an order under the Act detaining the petitioner on the same grounds on which earlier detention was ordered. In support of this objection the petitioner submitted along with his representation, a certified copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradip Kumar Dass V. State of West Bengal, Writ Petn. No. 0f. . etc. , of 1973, decided on 29-4-1974 : (reported in 1974 Cri LJ 1476 : AIR 197* SC 2151 ). The Government rejected the petitioner's representation, The petitioner has, therefore, challenged his detention by preferring this habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on various grounds, but the main ground that has been pressed before us is th^l under. Section 14 (2) of the Act the petitioner could be detained only on fresh facts which must have arisen after the ;. . date of the revocation o| the expiry of the first detention order. In para. 6 of his petition, it has been mentioned by the petitioner. that the impugned order of detention passed on the basis of the same grounds which were the basis of earlier detention order dated 27-4-1974 is in violation of Section 14 (2) of the Maintenance; of Internal Security Act, 1971. and also the law laid down bv the Supreme Court of India. " In Clause (vi ). of para. 12 it was further mentioned that the detention order was pawed by the District Magistrate without applying his mind "and is mechanical reproduction of the earlier ground? of detention dated 27-4-1874. "

(3.) OTHER grounds have also been mentioned in the petition to challenge the validity of the detention order, but we meed* not reproduce them here as the petition can be disposed of on the ground that under Section 14 (2) of the Act the petitioner could have been detained only en fresh grounds' alter his earlier detention was quashed by this Court.