Mitter, J. - (1.) This is a petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of 'habeas corpus' in respect of the detention of one Sanat Hazra. It is contended on the detenu's behalf that his detention was and is illegal, on the ground that the order under Section 11 of the relative Preventive Detention Act was for a period beyond the life of the Act. This is the only point urged.
(2.) The following facts appear to be undisputed: The initial order of detention was made by the District Magistrate concerned on 7-8-1954. This order was in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(2), Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (4 of 1950) as amended by the Preventive Detention (Second Amendment) Act, 1952 (61 of 1952). On the same day, there was a further order by the District Magistrate directing that the detenu be detained in the Dura Dum Central Jail. The letter addressed to the detenu setting out the grounds for his detention was also dated 7-8-1954, but it was not served upon the detenu until 18-8-1954. By an order dated 17-8-1954, the State Government approved of the initial order of detention. Upon receipt of the grounds of his detention, the detenu made a representation which was duly placed before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the Act. After having heard the detenu and considered the materials before it, the Advisory Board reported that there was in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the said detenu. By an order dated 29-9-1954, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act, the State Government confirmed the detention order of 7-8-1954, and directed that the detenu be detained till the expiration of twelve months from the date of his detention. As the relative Preventive Detention Act was to expire on 31-12-1954, the period so fixed went beyond the life of the Act.
(3.) Mr. Arun Dutt for the petitioner contends, firstly, that any order detaining a person beyond the life of the Act was illegal and, secondly, that the detention of the person after the Act concerned had expired was also illegal in the absence of a fresh order of a detention under the Act as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1954 (51 of 1954). In support of these contentions, Mr. Dutt has relied upon 3 Supreme Court decisions, in all of which, according to him, the Supreme Court emphatically laid down that the duration of a detention must come to an end with the expiration of the Act concerned.;