Satyanarayana Rao J.-Crl.M.P. No. 190 of 1949. This and the connected petitions under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code were heard together as they raise common questions of law under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1 of 1947.

The facts and the contentions peculiar to the other petitions will be dealt with separately. Under section 2(1)(a) of the Act the District Magistrate, Madura, passed an order of detention, dated 1st April, 1948, and the applicant was arrested on the same day. He was kept in police custody at Madura till the 3rd April, when he was removed to the Central Jail, Vellore. The grounds of detention were communicated to the applicant on 24th April, 1948, and he submitted his explanation on the 10th May, 1948. The Government referred the matter to the Advisory Council on 14th February, 1949 and the matter is still pending with it. This application was filed on 18th January, 1949, and till now no final order was passed by the Government under section 3(5) of the Act.

Mr. N.S. Mani, the learned counsel for the applicant, raised two contentions: firstly that the order of detention was void ab initio and not bona fide as the grounds now communicated to the detenu would not justify the order; secondly it was argued that as Government had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions required to be carried out after the order of detention under section 2(1) was passed the continuance of the detention of the applicant is, in any event, illegal.

The first of these contentions may be disposed of shortly. The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate who was empowered under section 15 of the Act to take action under the Act states that he was satisfied that the applicant was acting in a manner prejudicial to the public safety and that with a view to prevent him from so doing, it is necessary to detain him. The satisfaction of the detaining authority is a condition precedent for the order of detention. An order which is legal on the face of it is presumed to have been legally made and the jurisdiction of this Court to go into the validity of such an order was considered by the Full Bench in Narayanaswami Naidu v. Inspector of Police, Mayavaram1. The Full Bench judgment was based upon an elaborate consideration of the decisions of the Courts in England and in India bearing upon the question, particularly the decisions of the House of Lords in Liversidge v. Sir John Anderson2and Greene v. Secretary of State for Home Affairs3. The learned Chief Justice after examining the authorities formulated under four heads the limitations within which this Court could interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with orders made under section 2 of the Act. They are:-

“(1) when the order is not duly authenticated, as for example, when it is passed by an officer or authority not empowered under section is of the Act;

(2) when the person detained in pursuance of the order is not the person intended to be detained, that is to say, when there is a mistake of identity;

(3) when there is lack of bona fides; and

(4) when it is established that the essential requirements of section 2, namely, the satisfaction of the Provincial Government or an officer or authority empowered under section 15 with respect to the particular person that he is acting or about to act in any manner prejudical to the public safety or the maintenance of public order and with a view to preventing him it is necessary to direct him to be detained or otherwise dealt with under section 2(1) of the Act, is not present. If it is established that neither the Provincial Government nor the officer or other authority empowered under section 15 has exercised its or his mind on the material placed before it or him, then an order of detention though purporting to be passed under section 2(1) must be deemed to be not an order under section 2.”

The other learned Judges also agreed with this view. Under