Vaidialingam, J. - (1.) The appellant was detained by the District Magistrate, Amritsar, on June 20, 1972, under Section 3, sub-section (2) read with section 3 (1) (a) (i) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as amended by sub-section (6) of Section 6 of the Defence of India Act, 1971. He challenged the detention before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Writ No. 33 of 1972. The High Court upheld the order of detention and dismissed his Writ Petition. The detenu has come up to this Court by special leave.
(2.) Mainly two contentions were raised before us by Mr. Srinatha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant: (1) The copies of the grounds for detention were supplied to the detenu in Punjabi and English languages and as he knows only Urdu, he has been denied an effective opportunity to make his representation; and (2) there has been considerable delay in disposing of the representation made by the detenu. From the affidavit of the District Magistrate, Amritsar, before the High Court, it is seen that the appellant was arrested on June 20, 1972 and the grounds of the detention were served on the petitioner in English and Punjabi languages on the same day. The petitioner being a born Punjabi has not raised any objection that he did not know either English or Punjabi. It is further stated that he sent a very lengthy representation covering about nine typed pages in English and signed the same in Punjabi.According to the District Magistrate, the plea of the appellant that his mother tongue is Urdu and that he is not familiar with English or Punjabi is an afterthought.
(3.) The appellant has accepted in his Writ Petition that the grounds of detention were served on him in English together with a transliterated copy in Punjabi (Gurmukhi script). But his plea is that he does not possess any knowledge of Punjabi or English, as his mother tongue is Urdu. It is accepted on behalf of the appellant that he did send a very lengthy representation covering several typed pages in English and signed in Punjabi. If that is so, it is reasonable to infer that the appellant was able to fully understand the nature of the allegations made against him. If that were not so, it is difficult to appreciate how he was able to make such a lengthy representation dealing with the several allegations contained in the copies of the grounds served on him. This cannot be considered to be a case where no effective opportunity was furnished to the appellant because of his alleged language difficulty. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Chaju Ram v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1970) 3 SCR 872 is of no assistance to the appellant. Therefore, the first contention has to be rejected.;