- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11, 1961, of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court's (Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant's application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, read with S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he had prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce the petitioner in Court and to set him at liberty. This application was heard by us on January 8 and 9, 1962, and alter hearing Shri A. S. Bobde for the appellant and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Maharashtra we directed that the appellant be released forthwith and that the reasons for our judgment will follow later. We now proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day.
(2.) It appears that an order of Detention, under S. 3 (1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 10, 1961. The order of Detention is in these terms: "No. CC/X-(2) of 1961 Office of the District Magistrate, Nagpur, Dt. 10th April 1961. Order of Detention under S. 3 (1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. Whereas I am satisfied that it is necessary to prevent Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal of Nagpur from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that therefore, it is necessary to detain him. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by Section 3(1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, I Dinkarrao Hanmantrao Deshmukh, I. A. S., District Magistrate, Nagpur hereby direct that the said Shri Harikisan Kishorilal Agarwal be so detained. Given this 10th day of April 1961 under my signature and seal. seal of the Sd/D. H. Deshmukh D. M. Nagpur District Magistrate, Nagpur" He also directed that the appellant should be detained in the District Prison, Thana, and that for the purpose of the Bombay Conditions of Detention Order, 1951, be treated as a Class II Prisoner. The grounds of detention were served on the same day. The substance of the grounds is that since his release from previous detention in October, 1960, he had been instigating persons at Nagpur to defy and disobey reasonable directions and lawful orders issued by competent authorities from time to time, prohibiting and regulating processions and assemblies at Nagpur; that by use of highly provocative words, expressions and slogans in meetings and processions in Nagpur, in which he took a prominent part, he had instigated persons on several occasions at Nagpur to indulge in acts of violence and mischief and to create disturbance in the city of Nagpur; and that he had been acting, since October 1960, in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, in that City. And then follow 'notable particulars' of his activities, running into five closely typed pages and contained in many paragraphs. In his petition to the High Court, the petitioner raised a number of grounds of attack against the legality of the order of his detention, and most of those grounds have been reiterated in this Court. We do not think it necessary to go into all the points raised, on behalf of the appellant, by be learned counsel. In our opinion, it is enough to say that we are satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the Constitution have not been fully complied with, and that, therefore, the appellant had not the full opportunity provided or contemplated by that Article of making his representation against the Order of Detention.
(3.) In this connection, it is necessary to state the following facts. The appellant wrote a letter to the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 19, 1961, to the effect that had been served with an Order of Detention Dated April 10, 1961, and that the order and the grounds of detention being in English, he was unable to understand them and, therefore, asked for a Hindi version of the same so that he may be able to follow and understand the charges levelled against him and take necessary steps for his release from jail. He raised some other questions also in that letter, but it is not necessary to refer to them here. To that letter the District Magistrate replied by his letter dated April 23, 1961 the second paragraph of which, in the following terms, sets out his views of the matter : "The order of detention and the grounds of detention already communicated to you are given in English which is the official language in this district. It is not possible to supply any translation of the same for is (sic) it legally necessary under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. The order and the grounds of detention served on you were fully explained to you by the Police Officer in the presence of the D. S. P. Nagpur City.";