1974 (2) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to do so with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The fact of the making of the order of detention was reported by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 24th April, 1972 as required by sub Section (3) of Section 3 of the Act. The order of detention was approved by the State Government on 2nd May, 1972 and on the same day the State Government made the necessary report to the Central Government. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 11th May, 1972 and immediately on his arrest the grounds on which the order of detention was made were served upon him. These grounds were in the following terms : (1) That ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, submitted its report dated 18th July, 1972 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereupon passed an order dated 29th July, 1972 confirming the detention of the petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act. This order of detention is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 2. Though at the commencement of the arguments three contentions were formulated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner against the validity of the order of detention, two were given up when it became evident in the course of the discussion that they were wholly unfounded and ultimately only one con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der detaining the petitioner. Of-course this statement made on oath by the District Magistrate merely affirms the recital made in the order of detention and like the recital, it can be shown to be incorrect. But when the District Magistrate has made a statement on oath, the burden would be heavy on the petitioner to show that what is stated by the District Magistrate is not correct. The petitioner would have to establish from the material on record that the Distt. Magistrate could not possibly have arrived at the satisfaction which he claims to have done and that his satisfaction is colourable. Now the only circumstance on which the petitioner has been able to rest his case is the fact that the incidents referred to in the grounds of detent....