TMI Blog1950 (1) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminal P.C., for his release from detention in pursuance of an order made by the Provincial Government under S. 2 (1) (a), C.P. and Berar Public Safety Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). 2. The order was made on 22nd April 1949 and, on the application of the appellant dated 6th July 1949, the Government disclosed to him on 14th July 1949 the grounds of detention together with such particulars as, in their opinion, were sufficient to enable him to make a representation to the Government, The appellant thereafter applied to the High Court on 30th August 1949 alleging that his detention was illegal and praying for his release. He contended that S. 2 (1) (a) of the Act was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion. In that case it was held that S. 3 (1) (i), United Provinces Prevention of Black-marketing (Temporary Powers) Act, 1947, was ultra vires the Provincial Legislature, as habitual black-marketing as a ground for detention was too remote in the chain of relation to maintenance of public order to fall within the purview of Entry No. 1 of List II, and the Court ruled that the connection contemplated in the Entry must be real and proximate, not far-fetched and problematical . We consider it unnecessary for the purpose of this appeal to decide whether or not fomenting or inciting strikes with intent to cause or prolong unrest is so proximately related to the maintenance of public order as to enable a Provincial Legislature to authorise prev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to above, it is undoubtedly open to the Court, on a question of vires, to consider whether an impugned enactment has been made with a view to pre vent only such act or acts as are likely to endanger the public peace. But when once that is established and the Legislature is found to have acted within its powers, the Court is not concerned with the terms and conditions on which the executive authority has been empowered to order preventive detention, for these are matters of policy. In the present case S. 2 (1) (a), like most other similar enactments, authorise the detention of any person if the Provincial Government is satisfied that he is acting or is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety, order or tranquility. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f acts prejudicial to public safety and tranquility, for satisfaction in this connection must be grounded on material which is of rationally probative value. This brings us to the question whether the grounds put forward by the Government here are such as to satisfy that test. 7. The grounds communicated to the appellant stated, inter alia, that he was working for the Communist Party of India. which is spreading its doctrine of violence in different parts of the country, fomenting industrial strikes, causing agrarian unrest, rendering life and property insecure, and trying to seize power by violence and that be was assisting and associating with a named prominent member of the Party who had go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vincial Government remain uncontradicted, the appellant having only stated that he was not a member of that Party and did not work for it and that he had always been a constitutional trade unionist. It must therefore be taken, for the purposes of this case, that the said allegations are well-founded. If see membership of that party cannot be ruled out of consideration as material on which no satisfaction could rationally be grounded. There are also the allegations already referred to about the appellant assisting and associating with a prominent member of the party who has gone underground and about the likelihood of the appellant himself going underground and from there guiding the alleged subversive activities of the party. On these m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
