TMI Blog1965 (12) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder r. 30- (1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Government of Orissa on December 29, 1964. He raised a number of grounds challenging his detention. It is unnecessary to refer to all the grounds raised by the petitioner. It is enough to say that one of the grounds raised by him was, that the order of detention passed by the State Government was not based upon the satisfaction of the Government. The order was in these terms :- Order No. 8583/C, Bhubaneswar, the 29th December, 1964. WHEREAS the State Government is satisfied that with a view to preventing Shri Jagannath Misra, son of Biswanath Misra, vill. Bhandarisahi, P. S. Parlakemedi, District Ganjam, from acting in any manner prejudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 29, 1964, by the order in question and was actually detained on December 30, 1964. The affidavit then goes on to say that after the outbreak of hostilities between China and India and the declaration of emergency by the President a close watch was set on the movements and activities of persons who either individually or as a part of an Organisation were acting or were likely to act in a manner prejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of public order, and in this connection particular attention was paid to the activities of the members of that section of the Communist Party which came to be known as the pro-Peking faction of the Party. The petitioner was a member of the pro-Peking faction and was under close and constant watch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the safety of India and maintenance of public order, etc. It is: urged that the affidavit shows that the Minister did not really apply his mind to the question of the detention of the petitioner and the grounds for doing so and acted in a casual manner in approving the detention of the petitioner. It is urged that while the grounds specified in the order are six in number, the Minister when speaking of his satisfaction has mentioned only two, namely, safety of India (which may be assumed to be the same as the public safety) and maintenance of public sector. There is in our opinion force in this contention on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with all due care and caution and with the sense of responsibility necessary when a citizen is deprived of his liberty without trial. We have therefore to see whether in the present case the authority concerned has acted in this manner or not. If it has not so acted and if it appears that it did not apply its mind properly before making the order of detention the order in question would not be an order under the Rules and the person detained would be entitled to release. Now we have pointed out that the order of detention in this case refers to six out of eight possible grounds on which a person can be detained under s. 3 (2) (15). Of these eight grounds under s. 3 (2) (15) one refers to foreigners i.e., of being of hostile origin. There ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the order of detention against the provisions of s. 44 of the Act. This casualness also shows that the mind of the authority concerned was really not applied to the question of detention of the petitioner in the present case. In this view of the matter we are of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to release as the order by which he was detained is no order under the Rules for it was passed without the application of the mind of the authority concerned. There is another aspect of the order which leads to the same conclusion and unmistakably shows casualness in the making of the order. Where a number of grounds are the basis of a detention order, we would expect the various grounds to be joined by the conjunctive and and the use ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch responsible for it as if he had done so himself, for no order of detention can be passed without the satisfaction of the authority empowered under the Act and the Rules. The authority cannot take refuge in saying that it was really satisfied about, say, one ground but the person who later on wrote out the order of detention added many more grounds which the authority never had in mind. It is the duty of the authority to see that the order of detention is in accordance with what the authority was satisfied about. If it is not so, the inference of casualness is strengthened and the Court would be justified in coming to the conclusion that the order was passed without the application of the mind of the authority concerned. Petition allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
