Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated February 8, 1966 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 266 of 1965 refusing to grant a writ in the nature of habeas corpus ordering the release of the appellant, Jaichand Lal Sethia from detention under an order passed by the Government of West Bengal under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules.
(2.) After the Conclusion of arguments in this case on May 3, 1966 we expressed the view that this appeal should he dismissed, and the reasons will be stated later. We now proceed to express those reasons.
(3.) The case of the appellant is that he was carrying on business of purchasing and selling goods like cloves, cinnamon, dyestuff, etc. in the City of Calcutta. In the month of January, 1963 the appellant had some trouble with the police of Burrabazar, P. S. in Calcutta, particularly with the Sub-inspector Kalyan Dutt, Officer-in-charge of that Police Station. The appellant also said that he incurred the displeasure of the officers of the Customs Department who had illegally seized the goods of the appellant and also prevented him from participating at the auction-sales of Customs Department. The appellant had made a complaint to the higher authorities of the Customs Department in this respect. On September 27, 1965 the order of detention of the appellant was made by the Government of West Bengal under R. 30 of the Defence of India Rules and in pursuance of that order the appellant was detained in the Presidency Jail at Calcutta. The order of detention being No. 7422 H. S. of the Government of West Bengal Home Department Special Section reads as follows:- "Whereas the Governor is satisfied that with a view to preventing Sri Jaichand Lal Sethia, son of Sri Dipchand Sethia of 9 Dacres Lane. Calcutta from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, it is necessary to make an order directing that he be detained. Now, therefore, the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, l962, is pleased hereby to direct that the said person be detained and be kept in custody in the Presidency Jail during the period of such detention." The appellant obtained a rule from the Calcutta High Court asking the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of habeas corpus should not be granted directing the release of the appellant from detention. The case of the appellant was that the order of detention was made mala fide because the appellant had incurred the personal hostility of some officers in the police and Customs Departments. It was contended that the order of detention was procured mala fide upon false reports made vindictively under the Defence of India Rules by the officers in the police and Customs Departments. It was said that the order was made by the Chief Minister, West Bengal not because he was satisfied about the necessity of detaining him in the interest of public order but for ulterior considerations. In response to the notice an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal denying the allegations of the appellant. Affidavits were also filed by Kalyan Dutt and Debranjan Dutta controverting the allegations of the appellant so far as they were concerned. After hearing the parties the Calcutta High Court held that the order of detention was lawfully made by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the allegation of mala fides had not been established by the appellant. The High Court accordingly dismissed the application of the appellant for grant of a writ of habeas corpus.;