Rajagopalan, O.C.J. — On 28th September, 1957, the petitioner was taken into custody for preventive detention and he was served with an order passed by the Collector of Ramanathapuram District who was the Additional District Magistrate ex officio, under section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). That order of detention was approved of by the Government of Madras on 5th October, 1957, under section 3 (3) of the Act. Meanwhile in compliance with the requirements of section 7 (1) of the Act, the grounds on which the order of detention was passed were set out in the memorandum, dated 28th September, 1957, and this was served on the petitioner on 30th September, 1957. On 17th October, 1957, the petitioner’s case was referred to the Advisory Board under section 9 of the Act, and when the petitioner submitted his written representations on 24th October, 1957, those papers also were forwarded to the Advisory Board. The petitioner exercised his right to be heard in person, and the Advisory Board heard him on 16th November, 1957. On 20th November, 1957, the Advisory Board reported its opinion to the Government which ran:

“The Advisory Board is unanimously of the opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of Sri U. Muthuramalinga Thevar, M.P.”

The order of detention was confirmed by the Government on 22nd November, 1957, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 11 (1) of the Act. On 21st January, 1958, the petitioner presented an application to this Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, wherein he challenged the validity of his detention ordered under the provisions of the Act. The petition was supported by an affidavit sworn to by C. Danaraj. A rule nisi was ordered to issue on 24th January, 1958. The Advocate-General appeared on behalf of the State, the first respondent, and showed cause against the confirmation of the rule nisi.

The validity of the detention was challenged by Mr. Mohan Kumaramangalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, on two grounds: (1) The exercise of the statutory powers vested in the Government was mala fide, and (2) the facts set out in the ground numbered paragraph 1 (III) in the grounds of detention were actually incorrect and false.

Paragraph 1 (III) of the Grounds of Detention was:

“It is a fact and it has also been Sri Thevar’s claim that the Maravars of Mudukulathur Taluk and adjoining areas are devoted to him and completely amenable to his directions. It is particularly significant, therefore, that Sri Thevar has made no appeal to his followers to desist from violent acts but has actually been instigating these attacks against Harijans while remaining in the background......”

The specific averment in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition was:

“It was further stated quite falsely that it was significant that the petitioner has made no appeal to his followers to desist from violent acts.”

Earlier in paragraph 7 there was a reference to the part played by the petitioner in joining an appeal for peace at the Conference of the Congress Reform Committee held at Madurai on 28th September, 1957.

After the case had been heard in part a supplemental affidavit was filed on 10th February, 1958, which set out another ground of attack on the validity of the order of detention. The plea was, that it was apparent from the counter-affidavit of the Chief Secretary to the Government, that there was no report from the Advisory Board apart from its opinion, and that the failure to submit a report independent of the opinion constituted a contravention of the statutory requirements of section 10, which vitiated the subsequent confirmation ordered by the Government under section 11 (1) of the Act.

We are clearly of opinion that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge in these proceedings before us the factual correctness of ground No. 1 (III) as set out in the grounds of detention, that the petitioner “made no appeal to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document