TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (2) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded that the petitioner. be detained. The petitioner then- moved this petition on November 11, 1968 a writ of habeas corpus. Two contentions in the nature of preliminary objections were raised in support of the petition. It was urged that (1) the petitioner was, in spite of a specific request, denied a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, and (2) that the Chief Minister who was in charge of the portfolio relating to preventive detention did not apply his mind to the case of the petitioner before making the order of detention. An affidavit is filed by the Secretary to the Government of Jammu & Kashmir affirming that the petitioner made no request for production before the Board for a personal hearing. He has also affirmed that the Chief Minister did consider the case of the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be detained in custody under the Preventive Detention Act. In view of this affidavit, counsel for the petitioner did not press he two preliminary contentions. Counsel urged that the order of detention was invalid because (1) that the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Advisory board till September 24, 1968 and on that account his detention was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opinion sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit. (2) In any case where the Advisory Board has rePorted that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.,, Section 13 prescribes the maximum, period of detention for which any person may be detained in pursuance of any detention order. Section 13A which was added by Act 8 of 1967 enables the State to detain a person for a period of two years. Section 13A provides: "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person detained under a detention order made in any of the following classes of cases or under any of the following circumstances may be detained for a period longer than three months, but not longer than six months, from the date of detention, without obtaining the opinion of any Advisory Board, namely, when such person has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the 'security ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t are doubled; for making report to the District Magistrate when he exercises the power of detention the period is extended to twenty-four days : for the Government to serve the grounds of the order under s. 8(1) the period is extended to ten days; and for the Advisory Board to make its report in cases covered by s. 13A the period is extended to sixty days. Again by the proviso to s. 8(1) the Government is entitled to withhold in serving grounds upon the detenu that it would be against public interest to communicate to him the grounds on which the detention order has been made, Relying upon the terms of s. 10(1) as amended by s. 13A it was urged that the Government was bound to refer the case of the petitioner within sixty days from the date of detention and' since no reference was made the detention of the petitioner under the order dated March 16, 1968, was unauthorised. This argument is plainly unsustainable. Section 13A opens with words "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act", and provides that a person may be detained for a period not longer than six months without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. It is plainly contemplated thereby that the Government ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dle of January to March 1968 the petitioner went underground and during that period he used to attend secret meetings in which he used to stress upon the Government employees that their demands cannot be conceded by the, Government unless they resort to violence that the petitioner was violent by nature and was a perpetual threat to the maintenance of public order. It cannot also be said that merely because the previous order had been passed under which the 'Petitioner was intended to be detained for a period of six months and thereafter In consequence of further information the Government was required to issue a fresh order, the original order ,or the fresh order was illegal. The plea that the grounds were vague and indefinite cannot also be accepted. It is recited in the order that the Petitioner was informed that his detention was ordered on grounds specified in the Annexure appended thereto, which also contained facts relevant thereto except those which the Government considered to be against public interest to disclose. By virtue of sub-s. (2) of s. 8, it is open to the Government not to disclose,, facts which it considers to be ag ainst the public interest to disclose.....