Meredith, J.

1. This is an application on behalf of one Brajnandan Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ preventing the Government from enforcing an order under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Sec.2, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (Bihar Act III [3] of 1950) restricting the petitioners movements by forbidding him from going to any place in the districts of Singhbhum and Manbhum. The order is in the following terms:

Government of Bihar

Political Department

Special Branch

Patna, 6th January 1949.

ORDERS.

3

No.---

62(4)/48

C.E. Whereas the Governor of Bihar is satisfied with respect to the person known as Shree Brajnandan Sharma, son of Shree Ayodhya Prasad Sharma of village Dabaul P.S. Hilsa, district Patna at present Jamadova P.S. Jorapokhary, Dhanbad, that with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of the public order it is necessary to make the following order :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2, Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 (Bihar Act (III [3] of 1950) the Governor of Bihar is pleased to direct that the said Shree Brajnandan Sharma shall not with effect from the date of service on him of this order be in any place in the district of Singhbhum and Manbhum.

By order of the Governor of Bihar,

Sd. B.K. Dutta,

Under-Secretary to Government.

2. This order is dated 6th January 1949, but that is obviously a clerical error for 6th January 1960, when in fact the order was passed. It was, thus passed before the New Constitution came into force on 26th January, and Mr. Awadhesh Nandan Sahay, who represents the petitioner, concedes that he could not successfully challenge the order before 26th January. His contention is, however, that on the Constitution coming into force, the restrictive provisions in Act III [3] of 1950 and also the order passed thereunder became void under Article 13 (1) of the Constitution read with Articles 19(1)(d) and 19(5). Article 13(1) says :

"13 (1). All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void."

Article 19 (1) provides :

"19 (1). All citizens shall have the right - (d) to move freely throughout the territory of India." Article 19 (5) is in these terms : "19 (5), Nothing in Sub-clauses (d), (e) and (f) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any scheduled tribe."

It is contended that the provision for restricting an individuals movements contained in Sec.2 (1) (b) of the Act is not reasonable because it provides for orders not on reasonable grounds, but on the satisfaction of the State Government which may be reasonable or unreasonable. But that, in any event, is a subjective matter in regard to which, upon the terms of the Act the Courts cannot apply an objective test of reasonableness. Moreover, the Act does not even make it obligatory on any particular individual to satisfy himself, and merely involves the satisfaction of some unknown individual official, purporting to represent the Government. The order purports to express the satisfaction of the Governor, but admittedly the Governor personally has nothing to do with it. It is the order of the Government in his name. (We are informed by the learned Advocate-General that in fact in such cases the satisfaction is that of the Chief Minister, who himself considers and approves the order). Next, the Act does not provide any opportunity to the petitioner to vindicate himself, or challe