Preventive detention affidavit and disclosure requirements: Supreme Court upheld detention where complete factual grounds were supplied.

In preventive detention, the absence of an affidavit from the detaining authority is not fatal where no specific plea of personal bias, mala fides, or other extraneous consideration is raised; an affidavit from another responsible officer based on official records is sufficient, so the detention was not invalidated on that ground. Non-disclosure of an additional descriptive allegation did not vitiate detention where the grounds supplied to the detenu set out the complete factual basis, including the incidents relied upon, and thus enabled an effective representation; the detention was therefore upheld and the writ petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the detention order was liable to be quashed because the affidavit in opposition was filed by the Deputy Secretary and not by the District Magistrate who made the order; (ii) whether non-disclosure of the allegation that the detenu was a notorious stealer of electric copper wire vitiated the detention for denial of an effective representation.

Issue (i): whether the detention order was liable to be quashed because the affidavit in opposition was filed by the Deputy Secretary and not by the District Magistrate who made the order.

Analysis: In a habeas corpus petition, the affidavit of the authority making the detention order is ordinarily desirable, but its absence is not by itself fatal. The necessity of such an affidavit depends on the nature of the challenge. Where personal bias, mala fides, or other extraneous considerations are specifically alleged, an affidavit from the detaining authority may become necessary. In the absence of such allegations, an affidavit sworn by another responsible officer on the basis of official records is sufficient.

Conclusion: The absence of the District Magistrate's affidavit did not vitiate the detention order.

Issue (ii): whether non-disclosure of the allegation that the detenu was a notorious stealer of electric copper wire vitiated the detention for denial of an effective representation.

Analysis: The grounds of detention supplied to the detenu disclosed the two incidents relied upon for the order, including the dates, places, participants, and the consequences of the thefts. The record showed that only those two incidents were taken into account in making the order, and no other circumstance was relied upon. Since the detenu was informed of the entire factual basis for detention, he was not deprived of any material necessary for making a representation.

Conclusion: Non-mention of the additional description did not prejudice the detenu or invalidate the detention.

Final Conclusion: The detention was upheld and the writ petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, omission to file an affidavit by the detaining authority is not fatal unless the challenge raises grounds such as personal bias or mala fides, and detention is not vitiated where the detenu is supplied with the complete factual basis necessary to make an effective representation.

---