Judgment

Patanjali Sastri, C.J.I.- This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution submitted through the Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambala, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus for the release of the petitioner from custody.

2. On 5-7-1950, the petitioner was arrested and detained under an order of the District Magistrate of Amritsar in exercise of the powers conferred on him under S. 3, Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and the grounds of his detention were served on him as required by S. 7 of the Act on 10-7-1950. The Act having been amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, with effect from 22-2-1951, a fresh order No. 7853 - ADSB, dated 17-5-1951 was issued in the following terms :

Whereas the Governor of Punjab is satisfied with respect to the person known as Naranjan Singh Nathawan, s/o. Lehna Singh of village Chak Sikandar, P. S. Ramdas, Amritsar District, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is necessary to make the following order : Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s. (1) of S. 3 and S. 4 of the Preventive Detention Act 1950 as amended by the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1951, the Governor of Punjab hereby directs that the said Naranjan Singh Nathawan be committed to the custody of the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, and detained in any jail of the State till 31-3-1952, subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified by a general order or as contained in the Punjab Detenu Rules, 1950.

This order was served on the petitioner on 23-5-1951 but no grounds in support of this order were serve on him.

3. The petitioner thereupon presented this petition for his release contending that the aforesaid order was illegal inasmuch as (1) the grounds of detention communicated to him on 10-7-1950 were "quite vague, false and imaginary" and (2) he was not furnished with the grounds on which the order dated 17-5-1951 was based. The petition was heard ex parte on 12-11-1951 when this Court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause why the petitioner should not be released, and it was posted for final bearing on 23-11-1951. Meanwhile, the State Government issued an order on 18-11-1951 revoking the order of detention dated 17-5-1951 and on the same date the District Magistrate, Amritsar, issued yet another order for the detention of the petitioner under Ss. 3 and 4 of the amended Act; this last order along with the grounds on which it was based was served on the petitioner on 19-11-1951.

4. Thereupon the petitioner submitted a supplemental petition to this Court on 28-11-1951, challenging the validity of the last order on the ground that "it was only a device to defect the habeas corpus petition of the petitioner in which a rule had already been issued", and he put forward an additional ground of attack on the legality of the earlier order dated 17-5-1951, namely, that it fixed the terms of detention till 31-3-1952 before obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board as required by S. 11 of the amended Act. This ground was evidently based on the view expressed by this Court that the specification of the period of detention in the initial order of detention under S. 3 of the amended Act before obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board rendered the order illegal.

5. In the return to the rule showing cause filed on behalf of the respondent, the Under-Secretary (Home) to the Government explained the circumstances which led to the issue of the fresh order of detention dated 18-11-1951. After stating that the petitioner s case was referred to and considered by the Advisory Board constituted under S. 8 of the amended Act and that the Board reported on 30-5-1951 that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner, the affidavit proceeded as follows :

That the Government was advised that the orders made under S. 11,