TMI Blog1969 (2) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected by this Court on October 10, 1968. In the meanwhile the order dated March 16 1968, was revoked on September 16, 1968, and another order was served upon the petitioner on the same day. On September 24, 1.968, he was served with the grounds of detention for the fresh order, and his case was referred to the Advisory. Board on October 26, 1968. On October 30, 1968, the Advisory Board recommended that the petitioner. be detained. The petitioner then- moved this petition on November 11, 1968 a writ of habeas corpus. Two contentions in the nature of preliminary objections were raised in support of the petition. It was urged that (1) the petitioner was, in spite of a specific request, denied a personal hearing before the Advisory Board ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it is inconsistent with any of the provisions of this (Part III) Part, but any such law shall, to the extent of such in-consistency, cease to have effect on the expiration of fifteen years from the commencement of the said Order, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the expiration thereof. The protection of cls. (5), (7) of Art. 22 insofar the, provision are inconsistent therewith does not avail the petitioner. By s.3 the Government of Jammu and Kashmir is entitled, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to Preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, to make an order direct that such person be detained. By s. 8 it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detained in pursuance of any detention order. Section 13A which was added by Act 8 of 1967 enables the State to detain a person for a period of two years. Section 13A provides: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, any person detained under a detention order made in any of the following classes of cases or under any of the following circumstances may be detained for a period longer than three months, but not longer than six months, from the date of detention, without obtaining the opinion of any Advisory Board, namely, when such person has been detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to (i) the 'security of the State; (ii) the maintenance of public order; Provided that where any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er has been made under this Act' occurring in the beginning, the brackets and words '[other than a case to which the proviso to section 8(1) applies]' shall be inserted; and (ii) for the words 'thirty days' the words 'sixty days' shall be substituted, (b) in section 1 1, for the words 'ten weeks' the words five months shall be substituted. The effect of s. 13A insofar as it is relevant to this case is to authorise the State in the cases specified to detain a person without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board, if he is to be detained for a period longer than three months but not longer than six months from the date of detention. By sub-s. (2) the periods prescribed for the various steps u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner was detained for six months from March 16,.1968 to September 16, 1968 without obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. We will be justified in accepting the contention of the State that it was intended, when the order was pass detaining the petitioner that he was not to be kept in detention for a period longer than six months and his case fell within the terms of s. 13A (1) and on that account it was not necessary to obtain the opinion of the Advisory Board. It was said by counsel for the petitioner that the plea of the State was inconsistent with the course of events, and the State Government had taken shelter under the provisions of S. 13A (1) even though they had at no stage any desire to release the petitioner from jail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tress upon the Government employees that their demands cannot be conceded by the, Government unless they resort to violence that the petitioner was violent by nature and was a perpetual threat to the maintenance of public order. It cannot also be said that merely because the previous order had been passed under which the 'Petitioner was intended to be detained for a period of six months and thereafter In consequence of further information the Government was required to issue a fresh order, the original order ,or the fresh order was illegal. The plea that the grounds were vague and indefinite cannot also be accepted. It is recited in the order that the Petitioner was informed that his detention was ordered on grounds specified in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
