Judgment

SIKRI, CJI.:- This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the detention of the petitioner under the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964 (J. and K. Act XIII of 1964) hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. On June 24, 1970, the District Magistrate of Baramula passed the impugned detention order in the following terms:

"OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BARAMULLA.

No PDA/IMB/81

Dated 24-6-1970.

ORDER

Whereas I, S. S. Rizvi, District Magistrate, Baramula, am satisfied that with a view to preventing Mohammad Maqbool Damnoo s/o Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Damnoo alias Mahda Joo r/o Sangrampora from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, it is neccessary so to do;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (2) read with Section 5 of the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 1964, I, S. S. Rizvi, District Magistrate, Baramulla herby dircet that the said Mohammad Maqbool Damnoo be detained in the Central Jail Srinagar, subject to such conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline as have been specified in the J. and K. Detenues General Order, 1968.

Sd/-

District Magistrate, Baramuall.

No. Con/826-30

Dated 24-6-1970.

Copy forwarded :-

1. Shri Abdul Majid Lone, Dy. S. P. Sopore in duplicate for execution of the order as provided by Sec. 4 of the J. and K. Preventive Detention Act, 1964. Notice of the order shall be given to Mohmmad Maqbool Damnoo by reading over the same to him and one copy duty (duly) executed, returned to his office....."

3. On the same date, the District Magistrate passed an order under Section 8. read with Section 13-A of the Act directing that the petitioner be informed that it was against the public interest to disclose to him the grounds on which his detention was based. On July 11, 1970, the Government having considered the order of detention, the report of the District Magistrate, the grounds on which the order had been made, and other particulars bearing on the matter approved the said detention order.

4. The petitioner sent an application to this Court date April 10 ,1971 requesting that he be produced before this Court so as to enable him to file an appropriate writ challenging his detention. This Court on May 11, 1971 directed that this application be treated as writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and directed issue of rule nisi. The Court further directed that the petitioner be produced before it two days before the hearing of the petition.

5. The State filed an affidavit in reply. The petitioner than filed the formal writ petition through an advocate on July 27, 1971. The State again filed an affidavit in reply. On an application having been made for permitting to raise additional grounds, the Court allowed the petitioner to file a comprehensive amended petition. On October, 9, 1971, the amended writ petiton was filed in this Court. The State filed another affidavit in reply.

6. Mr. Garg, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner, raised the following points befor us:

(1) that the Jammu & Kashmir Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1967 (J & K Act VIII of 1967) hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act was invalid as it was not assented to by the Sadar-i-Riyasat;

(2) that the proviso inserted by S.4 (2) in sub-s. (1) of S. 8 is bad because it suffers from excessive delegation;

(3) there has been violation of Art. 21 and Art. 22 of the Constitution;

(4) at any rate, the proviso is bad because it conflicts with S. 103 of the Contitution of Jammu & Kashmir,

(5) that the detention order is bed because the detaining authority has not applied its mind; and

(6) that the order of detention is bAd because it was not served or executed in accordance with law.

7. In support of his first contention the learned counsel that under Art. 370 of the Indian Constitution the only authority which is recognised as the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir is the Sadar-i-Riyasat. Article 370 contemplates th