Hidayatullah, J. - (1.) The appellant (Rameshwar Lal Patwari) applied under Article 226 of the Constitution and S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a writ or order in the nature of Habeas Corpus for his release from detention in Bhagalpur Central Tail in pursuance of an order of detention passed by the Governor of Bihar on July 4, 1967 under S. 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1450. He was arrested under the order on July 11, 1967 and was served on July 13, 1967 with a copy of the grounds on which his detention was based to enable him to make a representation. He made a representation but his release was not recommended. His application in the High Court was also dismissed. He now appeals by special leave.
(2.) The order of the Governor recites that it is necessary to make an order for his detention to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supply and services essential to the community. The grounds which were furnished to him were as follows: (1) He is a prominent businessman of Dumka and with the association of Sarvashri Mulchand Choudury, Kanhaiaya Choudhury, Fulchand Modi, Pir Mohammed (Bengaria P. S.) Shikaripara and others he indulges in black marketing of foodgrains. He has four trucks, one jeep and a car which have been registered in the names of his relatives:Truck No BRL 1331 which is registered in the name of his brother-in-law (sala) , Sri Harichandra Agarwala was caught on 29th December, 1966 at Ranibahal near Mashanjor while carrying 95 bags of paddy for illegal trade. In this connection a case under the Essential Commodities Act has been instituted. He is on bail in this case. (2) His trucks always take to wicked routes to Saithia (West Bengal) and he himself pilots them. (3) A businessman of Barahiya disclosed that he (Rameshwar Lal Patwari) visited Barahiya on several occasions and purchased gram gramdal under various names and smuggled them to West Bengal. (4) On the night of 2-2-66. Sri R. S. Singh, 1st Class Magistrate along with Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, other Magistrate and police officers raided the house of Sri Rameshwar Lal Patwari and found all kinds of foodgrains in huge quantity. His stock Register was maintained in irregular way. Ha could not produce the sale register and tool the plea that it was produced before the Income-tax Officer. It was found that he has been dealing in foodgrains without any licence. A case has been instituted in this connection in which he is on bail. (5) Shri Babu Ram Bikaneria, owner of a Rice Mill at Saitha District Birbhum (West Bengal) visited Dumka on 26-11-66 and told him (Sri Rameshwar Lal Patwari) to supply ram and gramdal. He (Sri Rameshwar Lal Patwari) promised to supply gram and gramdal. On 7/8-12-66 Sri Mulchand Choudhury of Rameshwar, who is his agent sent his truck No. BRJ 2029 loaded with gram and gramdal to Saitha through Mahesh Kola Check post. His truck No. BRL 1366 and van BRL 2005 were found at Rameshwar on 7-12-66 wherefrom he smuggles foodgrains to West Bengal. He purchases gram and gramdal through Gopal Mandal of Lakhisarai (District Monghyr) and smuggles them to West Bengal. In the circumstances, the State Government are satisfied that if Shree Rameshwar Lal Patwari is allowed to remain at large, he will indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community For prevention of such activities the State Government consider his detention necessary. Shri Rameshwar Lal Patwari is informed that he may make a representation in writing against the order under which he is detained. His representation, if any, may be addressed to the Under Secretary to Government, Political (Special ) Department, Bihar, Patna and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail as soon as possible. By the order of the Governor of Bihar.
(3.) The grounds were challenged by the appellant in the High Court. According to him some of them did not exist in fact and others were vague or irrelevant. The High Court scrutinised them and came to the conclusion that his complaint had no substance. In this appeal he urges the same contentions and submits that the High Court was in error in its conclusion.;