T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, K. SUBBA RAO, J. R. MUDHOLKAR, B. P. SINHA
Harikisan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
The paragraph you are referring to is actually paragraph (!) in the provided document. It discusses the constitutional requirement for the communication of grounds of detention and the Court’s conclusion that the detention was illegal due to inadequate communication in this case.
Judgment
SINHA, C.J.I. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 11, 1961, of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court s (Nagpur Bench), dismissing the appellant s application, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, read with S. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he had prayed for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the State of Maharashtra and the District Magistrate of Nagpur, directing them to produce the petitioner in Court and to set him at liberty. This application was heard by us on January 8 and 9, 1962, and alter hearing Shri A. S. Bobde for the appellant and the learned Attorney-General for the State of Maharashtra we directed that the appellant be released forthwith and that the reasons for our judgment will follow later. We now proceed to set out our reasons for the order passed on that day.
2. It appears that an order of Detention, under S. 3 (1)(a)(ii) of the Preventive Detention Act (IV of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the District Magistrate of Nagpur on April 10, 1961. The order of Detention is in these terms:
"No. CC/X-(2) of 1961
Office of the District Magistrate,
Nagpur, Dt. 10th April 1961.
Order of Detention
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.