DWARKA DAS BHATIA Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under the Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the petitioner who has under detention by virtue of an order dated the 5th September, 1956, issued by the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under sub-section (2) of section 3 taken with sub-section (1) of section 12 of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was first placed under detention by virtue of an order passed by the District Magistrate, Jammu, under sub- section (2) of section 3 of the Act on the 1st May, 1956, and that order was confirmed and continued on the 5th September, 1956, under sub- section (1) of section 12 of the Act by the Government after taking the opinion of the Advisory Board. The two orders of detention, one of the District Magistrate dated the 1st May, 1956, and the other of the Government dated the 5th September, 1956, recited that the petitioner is directed to be detained because it was necessary to make such an order,

(2.) The, point raised before us is that since the detention is based on the assumption that Shaffon cloth and zari as well as mercury are all essential goods and since two out of the three categories of the goods with reference to the smuggling of which the detention has been directed, are found not to be essential goods, the entire order is illegal, although one of the items, viz., mercury is an essential commodity. In support of this contention, the cases of this court in Dr. Ram Krishan Bharadwaj v. State of Delhi, 1953 S. C. R. 708 :( A. I. R. 1953 S. C. 318) (A), and Shibban Lal Saksena v. State of U. P., 1954 S. C. R. 418 :( A. I. R. 1954 S. C. 179) (B), are relied upon. Learned counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir contends that the principle of these decisions has no application to the present case and attempts to distinguish the same. In order to understand the principle underlying these two cases, it is necessary to examine them in some detail.

(3.) In Dr. Ram Krishan Bhardwaj's Case (A) (supra) the two points that were raised were, (1) whether an order of detention is invalid if the grounds supplied in support thereof are vague, and (2) whether the vagueness of one or some of the various grounds vitiates the entire order. The argument advanced in that case was based on the view adopted by this Court in the decision in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram, 1951, S. C. R. 167: (A. I. R. 1951 S. C. 157) (C) viz., that the obligation cast on the detaining authority to supply grounds is for the purpose of enabling a detenu to make a fair representation to the authority concerned and to the Advisory Board against the order of detention. The argument was that in a case where one or more of the grounds are vague the petitioner is handicapped in making an adequate representation as regards that ground and his representation even if effective in respect of other grounds, may fail to carry conviction as regards the ground which is vague and that this might result in the detention being confirmed. The Court stated that argument was not without force and held as follows: