Judgment

B. K. MUKHERJEA, J. : This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ, in the nature of habeas corpus , directing the release of the petitioner Shibban Lal Saksena, who is said to the unlawfully detained in the District Jail at Gorakhpur.

2. The petitioner was arrested on the 5th of January 1953 under an order, signed by the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, and the order expressly directed the detention of the petitioner in the custody of the Superintendent, District jail, Gorakhpur, under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of cl. (a) of Section 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, as amended by later Acts. On the 7th of January following, the grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu in accordance with the provision of Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act and the grounds, it appears, were of a two-fold character, falling respectively under the two categories contemplated by sub-clause (ii) and sub-clause (iii) of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act.

In the first paragraph of the communication it is stated that the detenu in course of speeches delivered at Ghugli on certain dates exhorted and enjoined upon the cane-gowers of that area not to supply sugarcane to the sugar mills or even to withhold supplies form them and thereby of sugarcane essential to the community. The other ground specified in paragraph 2 is to the effect that by using expressions, some of which were quoted underneath the paragraph, the petitioner incited the cane-growers and the public to violence against established authority and to defiance of lawful orders and directions issued by Government officers and thereby seriously prejudiced the maintenance of public order.

3. The petitioner submitted his representation against the detention order on the 3rd of February 1953 and his case was considered by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the P. D. Act at its sitting at Lucknow on the 23rd February following. The Advisory Board gave a hearing to the petitioner in person and after it had submitted its report, a communication was addressed on behalf of the U. P. Government to the petitioner on the 13th of March 1953 informing him that the Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 11 of D. P. Act, had confirmed the detention order against him under sub-clause (ii) of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act and sanctioned the continuation of his detention until further orders, or up to a period of 12 months form the date of detention.

The second paragraph of this communication runs as follows :

"The detenu may please be informed that the Advisory Board did not uphold his detention under sub-clause (iii) of clause(a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act. Government have therefore revoked his detention under this sub-clause".

4. The petitioner has now come up before us with an application under Article 32 of the Constitution and Mr. Veda Vyas, who appeared in support of the petition, has challenged the legality of the detention order made against his client substantially on two grounds.

5. It is argued in the first place that from the grounds served upon the petitioner under Section 7 of the P. D. Act, it appears clear that the grounds which weighed with the detaining authority in depriving the petitioner of his liberty are that his activities were in the first place prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community and in the second place were injurious to the maintenance of public order. From the communication dated the 13th of March 19452 addressed to the petitioner, it appears, however, that the first ground did not exist as a fact and actually the U. P. Government purported to revoke the detention order under sub-clause (iii) of Section 3 (1) (a) of the P. D. Act. In these circumstances, it is contended that the detention order originally made cannot stand, for if the detaining authority proceeded on two grounds to detain a man and one of them is admitt