1973 (12) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a report in behalf of the petitioner's detention was submitted to the Central Government. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on May 29, it was considered on June 1 and on the very next day the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The Board gave its decision on June 28 and the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on July 30. The communication in regard to the confirmation of the detention order was received by the petitioner on August 14. 2. The order of detention was passed under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a stray incident, and (5) the order of confirmation passed by the State Government was not communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable time. 4. It is not proper that the particulars furnished to the petitioner should have been accompanied by a mechanical recital that he was being detained on the "grounds" mentioned therein, even though the order is founded on a single ground. The detaining authority must apply its mind to individual cases and ought not to adopt a mechanical approach to matters involving personal freedom. But the mistake is not of so serious a nature as would vitiate the detention. In regard to the statement that the particulars furnished to the petitioner were considered "separately and collectively&q....