TMI Blog1965 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Secretary, Government of Madras and others(1) in which judgment is being delivered today. It remains now to consider the other points that arise specially in these petitions. The petitioners are members of the Left Communist Party and were ordered to be detained along with others numbering 140 in all under r. 30(1) (b) of the Defence of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by orders of the Governor of Kerala passed on December 29, 1964. In pursuance of these orders the petitioners were arrested on December 30, 1964. At that time the State of Kerala was being governed by virtue of the Proclamation of the President dated September 10, 1964. By this Proclamation the President assumed to himself all functions of the Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Rules. The petitioners contend that this order was also mala fide as it was made to circumvent the possibility of the Petitioners release in case a party-government came into power in the State of Kerala after the elections. The petitioners further contend that there was no application of the mind of the authority when the orders of' detention were passed on December 29, 1964 and March 4, 1965. Further it is contended that there was no material before the Central Government on March 4, 1965 on the basis of which the orders of detention could be passed and therefore the orders passed on that date were illegal. Lastly, it is urged that if the orders of detention passed on December 29, 1964 were good, the only way in which they co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssary to consider the validity of the detention orders made on December 29, 1964, for those Orders are no longer in force and the petitioners are detained by orders passed on March 4, 1965. We shall therefore consider only the grounds urged against the validity of the orders passed on March 4, 1965. The first point that is urged is that these orders are mala fide inasmuch as they were passed to circumvent the possibility of the petitioners' being released in case a party government came into power in the State of Kerala after the elections in the beginning ,of March 1965. These allegations have been denied in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India. But apart form this denial we fail to see how the orders passed on M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only detention orders were passed on one day. It has also been stated on behalf of the Government of India that it was satisfied with respect to each individual person ordered to be detained on March 4, 1965 that detention was necessary for reasons already set out and it was after such satisfaction that the orders were passed though they happened to be -.passed on the same day. We are not therefore prepared to accept from the simple fact that as many as 140 orders were passed on the same day there was no satisfaction of the, Government of India with respect to each individual case. We have no reason to hold that the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India in this respect should not be believed. This contention must also fail. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed on March 4, 1965. We have already indicated that when the orders of December 29, 1964 were passed the President had assumed all functions of Government of the State of Kerala and the Governor was the agent of the President in the matter of governance of the State to such extent as the President thought fit to act through him. Therefore the order of the Governor dated December 29, 1964 was in the circumstances the order of the President acting through the agency of the Governor of Kerala in respect of the governance of the State and it was open to the President to cancel the order passed by his agent and that is what he did on March 4, 1965. In the circumstances the cancellation cannot be assailed as illegal. But it is urged that if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nment passing the orders of detention of its own on the same day. It was not necessary to carry out the empty formality of release from jail under the orders of cancellation and then to arrest the persons released immediately they came out of jail and to serve on them the new order of detention dated March 4, 1965 : (see Smt. Godavari Shamrao Parulekar v. The State of Maharashtra) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 446 We do not think it necessary to decide the nature of the detention between March 4 and March 6, 1965. Nor is it necessary in the present cases to decide whether an order of cancellation comes into effect immediately while an order of detention takes effect from the date it is communicated. What we have to see is whether the detention under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
