Bavdekar, J.

1. This is an appln. under Section 491, Criminal P. C. Article 226 of the Constitution by a person, who has been detained by an order made by the Dist. Mag. Ahmedabad, on 29-3-1950. The order stated that the Dist. Mag. Ahmedabad, was of the opinion that, in order to prevent the detenu from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State of Bombay the maintenance of public order, it was necessary to make an order detaining the said detenu. Under the Preventive Detention Act. 1950, when a detention order is made, grounds are to be furnished to the detenu as soon as may be, on 19-6-1950, the Dist. Mag., Ahmedabad, furnished to the detenu the grounds of the detention, which are as follows:

"That you are an active worker of the Communist Party in furtherance of the aims of the organisation you have been secretly actively engaged in organising dangerous violent agitation so as to cause widespread disturbance of peace disorder in the City other parts of the District; that you were up to the time of your arrest wilfully actively inciting the labour classes particularly the textile labourers in Ahmedabad City to resort to illegal strikes violence for achieving their demands rather than through, the machinery set up by the Administration with the ulterior object of bringing about disorder in the City; that you have been secretly publishing unauthorised objectionable news sheets exhorting the public, especially the labouring classes to start an open violent revolt to overthrow Govt."

Then, the Dist. Mag. went on to say that be was fully convinced that, if left at large, the detenu was likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State maintenance of public order in the City District.

2. The detenu has now made an appln. to this Ct. for his being set at liberty, the first point which has been made on his behalf is that the order in this case watt passed by one Dist. Mag., namely, Mr. Damry, at the time when the order was actually served upon the petnr. Mr. Damry had left charge another Dist. Mag., namely, Mr. Ghatge, was the Dist. Mag. of Ahmedabad. Mr. Ghatge does not seem to have applied his mind to the question as to whether the detenu should or should not be detained; but without his applying his mind to the question, the order which was passed by Mr. Damry was executed, the detenu was arrested in pursuance of the order. It is said that it is not permissible for any detaining authority to act upon an order which has been made by it a long time before. Circumstances may change, if an order which has been made in different circumstances is to be served at a much later date, the detaining authority must review the case afresh must come to the conclusion as to whether the order should or should not be executed, and if that is not done, then, there being no such satisfaction as is necessary that the detaining authority should have under the Preventive Detention Act, the order is bad, his detention consequently is bad also.

3. Now, in our view, in the first instance, an order which is issued by the Dist. Mag. takes effect upon the date of its issue. It is true that, if the Dist. Mag. were to sign an order keep it in his pocket, the order cannot be regarded even as issued; and if the order is never issued by the person who has made it, a subsequent Dist. Mag. cannot take action upon an order which has never been issued by his predecessor. But there are no reasons in this case for saying that, even if Mr. Damry made the order, the order, as a matter of fact, was never issued. As a matter of fact, the contention which has been made on behalf of the detenu itself shows that Mr. Ghatge not having applied his mind, the detenu has been arrested in consequence of an order made issued by Mr. Damry long before. Had the order been in Mr. Damrys pocket, it is obvious that it could not have resulted in the detention of the detenu. The order must, therefore, have be