Kamleshwar Nath, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to set the petitioner Nafis Ahmad at liberty by quashing the order dated 5-12-1986 Annexure-1 along with its grounds for detention of the petitioner passed under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act.
(2.) THE short point raised by Sri D. S. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner is on the basis of the proviso to section 14 (2) of the said Act. Sub-section (2) of section 14 runs as follows : " (2) THE expiry or revocation of a detention order (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the earlier detention order) shall not (whether such earlier detention order has been made before or after the commencement of the National Security (Second Amendment) Act 1984) bar the making of another detention order (hereafter in this sub-section referred to as the subsequent detention order) under section 3 against the same person : Provided that in a case where no fresh facts have arisen after the expiry or revocation of the earlier detention order made against such person, the maximum period for which such person may be detained in pursuance of the subsequent detention order shall, in no case, extend beyond the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of detention under the earlier detention order." The admitted facts are that the petitioner had faced several detention in the past. The order (sic) and relevant is the one passed on 11-9-1985 which was served upon the petitioner on 5-10-1985. In consequence of that order, he remained in detention for the specified statutory period of one year which expired on 4-10-1986, his writ petition against the detention having been dismissed. The present detention order was passed on 5-12-1986. The important fact is that the grounds contained in Annexure-2 to the present detention order are nine in number which are dated respectively 3-10-1986, 5-10-1985, 23-6-1986, 4-7-1986 unspecified dates of threats to Jail Authorities during the petitioner's detention in the Jail at Muzaffarnagar all prior to 4-10-1986, 26-9-1986, 8-2-1985, 15-8-1983 and 12-9-1983. Of these grounds, the last three grounds were also included in the detention order of 11-9-1985. The simple contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the grounds in support of the present detention order relate to a period prior to 4-10-1986 and therefore, having regard to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 14, the petitioner cannot be detained in prison in pursuance of the grounds of detention order. Sri Bireshwar Nath learned Addl. Government Advocate says that it is permissible to treat events which had occurred before 4- 10-1986 the facts of which were not the subject matter of the earlier detention order, in support of the impugned detention order.
(3.) THE proviso in question deals with a case "Where no fresh facts have arisen after the expiry"- of the earlier detention order. Admittedly, the earlier detention order expired on 4-10-1986. None of the facts which have given rise to the impugned detention order, has arisen after 4-10-1986, The proviso then goes on to say that in such a case "the maximum period for which such person may be detained in pursuance of the subsequent detention order shall, in no case, extend beyond the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of detention under the earlier detention order." The maximum permissible period of detention under the National Security Act is twelve months -the proviso says that in the case like the one with which we are dealing, this period of twelve months cannot extend "beyond the date of detention" under the earlier detention order. The date of detention under the earlier detention order was 5-10-1985. It may be mentioned that the expression "date of detention" in the proviso, should not be confused with the expression "period of detention." The proviso does not envisage that the period of twelve months would be reckoned after the expiry of the "period" of earlier detention ; it has to be reckoned from the date of detention. The result is that the total period of twelve months for which the petitioner can be detained under the impugned detention order could be only from 5-10-1985 upto 4-10-1986 which obviously has expired. That being so, the continued detention of the peti- tioner under the impugned detention order is invalid. It is wholly immaterial that the impugned detention order contains grounds which relate to incidents of some dates which were not taken into account under the previous detention order. The proviso does not say that the detention order itself would be invalid-it says that detention beyond a certain period is invalid. So, even if it may be said that valid detention order can be passed on the basis of some of those facts which were not the subject matter of the previous detention order, any detention beyond the expiry of 12 months from the date of detention under the earlier detention order would be invalid.;