Decided on November 21,1969



- (1.)(Judgment of the Court delivered by Gopal Rao Ekbote, J) 1. These are two applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenus and after examining the case to release them from the unlawful custody.
(2.)The relevant facts are that the petitioner in W. P, No. 3375 of 1969 is a Journalist at Vijayavada and the petitioner in the other writ petition (W. P. No. 3576 of 1969) is an agriculturist at Dintis mereka, hamlet of kodur, Divi Taluk. For the sake of convenience hereafter the petitioner in W. P. No. 3575 of 1969 wilt he referred to as the 1st petitioner and the petitioner in W. P. No. 3576 of 1969 as the 2nd petitioner. The 3rd respondent served ou both of them an order dated 26-7-1969 directing their detention under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act, herein after called "the Act." On 26-7-1569 the 3rd respondent exercising powers under Section 4 of the Act directed the petitioner to he detained in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of these orders, both the petitioner were arrested on 26-7-1969 and the have been lodged in the Visakhapatnam Jail. On 28-7-1969, the 3rd respondent served on the petitioners the grounds on the basis of which they were detained. The State Government approved the order on 5-8-1969. The case was referred to the Advisory Board Althoneh the petitioners may they do not know as to what has happened, the learned Advocate General has stated that the Advisory Board has conaimed the approval of the Govt. Their detention orders are challenged on many grounds. The first contention wss that their detention is rnalafide and is made on extraneous considerations, The argument was that in July 1969 a new State Ministry was constituted in which Sri Vengala Rao was included and he was assigned the Home portfolio. He announced and began to pursue an illegal policy of repression against the Communists, It is alleged that he instructed the concerned Police and the detaining authorities in the Krishna District to draw up reports and to pass detention orders against Communists whom the Home Minister thought fit to detain. In pursuance of these instru" ctions 5 reports were drawn up by the Inspector of Police, Specia Branch, Vjjayawada. Five orders of detention were passed on case day The State Government also approved these detentions in a single order mechanically and without considering each case separately. The Home Minister, against whom the said allegations are made has chosen not to file any affidavit. In the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate, Krishna, who is the detaining authority, 3rd respondent, these allegations have not been met at all.
(3.)In the counter affidavit filed by the Assitant Secretary, G.A.B. on behalf of the State Government, 1st respondent, these allegations have not been denied nor there is anv reference to these allegations After the preliminary argument of the petitioners were over and in the midst of the arguments of the learned Advocate General a further counter affidavit was sought to be filed on 10-11-1969 by the 3rd respondent . The petitioners objected to the receiving of the further counter affidavit at this stage and characterised it as an after thought- They complain that the petitioners would have no opportunity to adduce evidence if the affidavit is received at this stage and that they will be placed in a disadvantageous position.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.