Judgement

SHAH, J.: By order pronounced on April 22, 1968, we directed that the order passed by the State of Orissa detaining the appellant under the Preventive Detention Act be quashed. We proceed to record our reasons in support of our order.

2. On December 15, 1967, the District Magistrate, Cuttack, served an order made in exercise of power under Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Preventive Detention Act (4 of 1950) directing that the appellant be detained on the grounds that he-the appellant-was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing breaches of public peace, indulging in illicit business in Opium, Ganja, Bhang, country liquor, riotous conduct, criminal intimation and assault either by himself or through his relations, agents and associates as set out in the order. On December 19, 1967 the appellant filed a petition in the High Court of Orissa challenging the validity of the order of detention on the grounds, inter alia that the order and the grounds in support thereof served upon the appellant were written in the English language which the appellant did not understand. On January 18, 1968, the District Magistrate, Cuttack supplied to the appellant an Oriya translation of the order and the grounds. On January 28, 1968 the State of Orissa revoked the order and issued fresh order that:

"Whereas the order of detention dated the, 15th December, 1967, made by the District Magistrate, Cuttack against Shri Hadibhandhu Das son of late Ramchandra Das of Manglabag, town Cuttack has been revoked by the State Government on account of defects of formal nature by their order No. 396C dated the 28th January, 1968.

And whereas the State Government are satisfied with respect to the said Hadibhandhu Das, that with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary to detain him.

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) read with Section 4 (a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the State Government do hereby direct that the said Hadibandhu Das be detained in the District Jail at Cuttack until further orders,"

A translation of that order in Oriya was supplied to the appellant.

3. On February 8, 1968, the appellant submitted a supplementary petition challenging the validity of the order dated January 28, 1968. The High Court of Orissa rejected the petition filed by the appellant. Against that order with certificate granted by the High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

4. It is not necessary to set out and refer to large number of grounds which were urged at the Bar in support of the appeal by counsel for the appellant, since in the view we take the second order dated January 28, 1968, was not passed on any fresh facts which had arisen after the date of revocation of the first order, and is on that account invalid, and an order releasing the appellant from custody must be made.

5. The relevant provisions of the Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950 may be set out:

S. 3 (1)-"The Central Government or the State Government may-

(a) if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to

(i) the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India, or

(ii) the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or

(iii) the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, or

(b) * * * * *"

it is necessary, so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained."

S. 7- (1) when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made, and shall afford him the earliest opportunity, of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government.

(2) * * * * *"

Section 8 provides for the constitution of Adv