Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- The petitioners (1) B. Sundar Rao, (2) P. Appala Swamy (3) Raghunath Patro, (4) Budhi Ramalingam and (5) Kidari Dandasi have applied to this court for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus alleging that they have been illegally detained. The petitioners along with some others were arrested in January, 1969 on a charge of conspiracy under sections 120-B r/w IPC and 25 (f) of Arms Act. The case came for hearing before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaipur. On 17-4-1971 the petitioners were acquitted. They were, however arrested by the local police at 5.30 P. M. on the same day under section 151 Cr. P. C. and produced before the Magistrate on the next day i.e. 18-4-1971. Since proceedings under section 107 Criminal Procedure Code were contemplated, they appear to have been remanded to jail custody. On 20-4-1971 they were served with an Order dated 19-4-1971 passed by the District Magistrate, Koraput detaining them under section 3 (2) of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act,1970. Each one of the petitioners was served with a separate order of detention. The order of detention so far as it is relevant is as follows:

Since you with your associates have been systematically indulging in various acts of lawlessness, criminal activities and other illegal acts in a manner prejudicial to public order as per the grounds enclosed, I Sri S. K. Basu, I.A.S. District Magistrate, Koraput, after due consideration am satisfied that with a view to preventing you to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do and I have, therefore, passed an order under section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1970, directing that you be detained.

Simultaneously, each one of the petitioners was served the grounds on which the detention had been made. The grounds furnished to the petitioners are the same in every case and they are 22 in number. On a perusal of these grounds which are imprecisely and inartistically worded the District Magistrate appears to convey to the detenus that they were Naxalites who, in association with other Naxalites, both above-ground and under-ground, and in collaboration with those from beyond the limits of the State were indulging in the following activities:

1. murders of rich landlords, the Police and their informants and witnesses.

2. dacoities and looting of the richer section of the people.

3. overpowering the Police and snatching fire-arms from them.

4. spreading through their henchmen and supporters threats to witnesses and others that after their acquittal in the conspiracy case in which they were under-trial prisoners they would revenge themselves on the and

5. carrying on a campaign of an arms struggle and inciting the poorer sections of the population.

Since the above activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain them.

2. After the present petition was filed further grounds were permitted to be filed. Affidavits-in-reply supporting the Order of detention were filed on behalf of the State.

3. Section 3 (2) of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 provides:

"Any District Magistrates, or any Additional District Magistrates specially empowered in this behalf by the State government, may if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the power conferred by the said sub-section.

Sub-section (1) deals with the power of the State Government to make orders of detention and it is as follows:

(1) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained. It will thus be seen that the State Government and the District Magistrates have been given the power to detain a person if satisfied with respect to him that with a view of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial