- (1.) These are petitions under Art.32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. On 26-1-1956 the District Magistrate Thana, passed orders under S.3(2), Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for the detention of the petitioners and in execution of the orders, they were arrested on 27-1-1956. The next day, the D. M. sent his report to the State Government which on 3-2-1956 approved of the same. Meantime, on 30-1-1956 the District Magistrate formulated the grounds on which the orders of detention were made, and the same were communicated to the petitioners on 31-1-1956. A copy of these grounds was sent to the State Government on 6-2-1956.
(2.) The petitioners challenge the validity of the detention, on two grounds. They contend firstly that the grounds for the order of detention which were furnished to them under S.7 of the act are vague, and secondly that the requirements of S.3(3) of the act had not been complied with, in that those grounds had been sent to the State Government by the District Magistrate, not along with his report on 28-1-1956, but on 6-2-1956, after the State Government had approved of the order.
(3.) There is no substance whatsoever in the first contention. The communication sent to the petitioners runs as follows: "During the monsoon season in the year 1955, you held secret meeting of Adivasis in Umbergaon, Dhanu, Palghar and Jawhar Talukas of Thana District at which you incited and instigated them to have recourse to intimidation, violence and arson in order to prevent the labourers from outside villages hired by landlords from working for landlords. As a direct result of your incitement and instigation, there were several cases of intimidation, violence and arson in which the Adivasis from these Talukas indulged. Some of these cases are described below ....." Then follows a detailed statement of the cases. It is argued for the petitioners that no particulars were given as to when and where the secret meetings were held in which they are alleged to have participated, and that the bald statement that they took place during the monsoon season was too wide and vague to be capable of being refuted. But then, the particulars which follow give the dates on which the several incidents took place, and it is obvious that the meetings must have been held near about those dates. The communication further states that it is not in the public interests to disclose further facts. Reading the communication as whole, we are of opinion that it is sufficiently definite to apprise the petitioners of what they were charged with and to enable them to give their explanation therefor. That was the view taken by Chagla C. J. in the applications for habeas corpus, which the petitioners moved in the High Court of Bombay under Act: 226 of the Constitution, and we are in agreement with it. The complaint that the grounds are vague must therefore fail.;