ivil Appeal No 2591 of 1989
From the Judgment and Order dated 1231986 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in FAO No 986 of 1985
Rajinder Sachar ES Agarwala HD Bhardwaj JS Manhas and RK Kapoor for the Appellant
Dr YS Chitale KB Rohatgi and Baldev Atreya for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 851 PATHAK CJ
Special leave granted
This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside an arbitration award
The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board referred to shortly as the Marketing Board entered into a contract with the appellant for the construction of their office building at Panchkula near Chandigarh
It was stipulated that the work would be completed within six months
It was also stipulated that in case of a dispute between the par ties the Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board would be appointed as sole Arbitrator
A dispute arose between the parties in regard to comple tion of the construction and it was decided to refer the matter to arbitration
On 11 March 1983 the respondent appointed Shri DP Gupta Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board as Arbitrator
While the Arbitrator was seized of the dispute between the parties the Chairman of the Marketing Board purported to revert him to his parent Department
On 6 April 1984 the Arbitrator made his Award
Under the Award the appellant was held entitled to Rs5524266 with interest
On 2 May 1984 the appellant applied before the learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class Chandigarh for making the Award a rule of the Court
Meanwhile on 24 May 1984 the State Government passed an order confirming that Shri DP Gupta continued in his post as Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board
On 28 February 1985 the Marketing Board passed a resolution giving effect to the direction of the Government extending the deputation tenure of Shri D P
Gupta to 3 September 1985
On 30 July 1985 the Trial Court made the Award a rule of the Court
In appeal to the High Court it was urged that on 6 April 1984 the date on which the Arbitrator made his award the Arbitrator had lost jurisdiction since he had been transferred out on 4 April 1984 from the post of Superintending Engineer of the Marketing Board to his parent Department in the Haryana Government
The High Court accept ed the plea and reversed the order of the Trial Court and set aside the Award
The sole question before us is whether the Arbitrator Shri DP Gupta had jurisdiction to make the Award on 6 April 1984 or had lost jurisdiction because of the order dated 4 April 1984 reverting him to his parent Department
The material before us shows that Shri DP 852 Gupta was on deputation with the Marketing Board up to September 4 1984 and that he was prematurely required by the Chairman of the Marketing Board by order dated 4 April 1984 to revert to his parent Department
The State Govern ment however ordered on 24 May 1984 that Shri DP Gupta would continue on deputation with the Board and it is not disputed that Shri Gupta rejoined the Board
He did not in fact ever resume a post in his parent Department
The neces sary consequence of the order of the State Government con tinuing him on deputation with the Marketing Board was to nullify the order dated 4 April 1984 passed by the Chairman purporting to revert Shri Gupta to his parent Department
It appears from the record that Shri Gupta was paid his salary by the Marketing Board for the entire month of April 1984 a circumstances which establishes that the Board itself con sidered him as continuing on deputation when he made the Award
That being so he must be deemed to have enjoyed jurisdiction as Arbitrator on 6 April 1984 when he made the Award
The deputation of Shri Gupta with the Marketing Board did never terminate
In the result the appeal is allowed the judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the judgment and decree of the Trial Court are restored
No Order as to costs
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition and a special leave petition challenging the detention order passed under the 
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that the period of detention intended by the detention order was not a fixed one but could be correspond ingly extended if the detenu absconded before he could be apprehended and detained or the period of detention was interrupted by an erroneous judgment of a High Court and the detenu was set free
Referring the cases to a larger Bench this Court HELD By the Court  As the matter is of great public importance these cases are referred to a Bench of five Judges of this Court
870C Per Pathak C J Preventive detention invariably runs from the date specified in the detention order and the period of deten tion is determined by the detaining authority applying its subjective judgment to material before it
869G H In the case of grant of parole one possible view can be that the period of parole should be counted within the total period of detention and not outside it
As regards the problem raised by release of a detenu pursuant to an errone ous decision of the High Court and the subsequent reversal of the decision by the Supreme Court the remedy probably lies in the enactment of legislation analogous to section 51 and section 154 of the 868 Administration of Justice Act 1960 in the United Kingdom
870A B As the question is of great public importance affecting on the one hand the need for affective measures of preven tive detention and on the other the liberty of the subject and his right to freedom from detention beyond the period intended by the statute and since most cases of preventive detention are bound to be affected these cases are referred to a five Judge Bench for reconsideration of the law on the point
870B C State of Gujarat vs Adam Kasam Bhaya   State of Gujarat vs Ismail Juma  Ors   Smt
Poonam Lata vs ML Wadhawan and Others AIR 1987 SC 1383 and Pushpadevi M Jatia vs ML Wadhavan   dissented from
Per Sharma J Concurring In view of the great public importance involved these cases may be heard by a five Judge Bench
870E State of Gujarat vs Adam Kasam Bhaya   State of Gujarat vs Ismail Juma  Ors   Smt
Poonam Lata vs ML Wadhawan and Others AIR 1987 SC 1383 and Pushpadevi M Jatia vs ML Wadhavan   affirmed