Case: Avtar Singh &amp; Others Vs. The State of Jammu &amp; Kashmir

drew my attention to the views expressed by this Court in Ujagar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 756 = (AIR 1952 SC 350 ), to the following effect:- Let us now turn our attention to the main contentions. There is nothing strange or surprising in the fact that the same grounds have been repeated after the lapse of several months In both the cases, when it is remembered that the petitioners were under detention and in jail during the whole of the intervening period. No fresh activities could be attributed to them. There could only be a repetition of the original ground or grounds, whether good or bad. It does not follow from this that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was purely mechanical and that the mind did not go with the pen. The past conduct or antecedent history of a person can be taken into account when making a detention order, and, as a matter of fact, it is largely from prior events showing the tendencies or indications of the man that an inference could be drawn whether he is likely even in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. If the authority satisfied himself that the original ground was still available and that there was need for detention on its basis, no male fides can be attributed to the authority from this fact alone." Relying on this principle laid down by this Court, it was urged by learned counsel that, in the present case also, no inference could be made that the fresh order under R. 30 (1) (b) for detention of the petitioner was mala fide and, consequently, it should not be held that it is liable to be vacated. The question of applying these views to the present case does not arise, because there is no allegation that the fresh order made against the petitioner under R. 30 (1) (b) amounted to exercise of power mala fide. The ground on which that order has to be held to be invalid is entirely different. That ground is that, even though the Government may not have acted deliberately with the purpose of depriving the petitioner of his rights, the effect of that order at least is that he, in fact, is prejudiced inasmuch as he does not get an opportunity at all to submit an explanation or place other materials to correct or contradict the evidence on the basis of which the Government would have been required to make an order of continuation under R. 30-A (9).By proceeding under R. 30 (1) (b) instead of R. 30-A (9), which is the Rule under which, according to the scheme of the Rules, the Government should have proceeded, the Government has rendered R. 30-A (9) ineffective. This procedure necessarily results in substantial prejudice to the petitioner. It is not a question of a mere formality or technical defect. The right envisaged by this Court in Lakhanpals case, W. P. No. 258 of l966, D/- 7-3-1967 = (AIR 1967 SC 1507 ) (supra) accruing to a detenu, when his case is reviewed and an order of continuation of detention is made, is a valuable right and its deprivation will amount to material prejudice. In these circumstances, if the Government had, in fact, adopted the course of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to correct or contradict the evidence existing against him either by explanation or through other materials which he could place before the Government, and had then proceeded to make an order under R. 30 (1) (b), no such objection could have been taken, because it would have been a question of mere technicality that the order being made by the Government was one of a fresh detention under R. 30 (1) (b) instead of an order of continuation under R. 30-A(9). The question whether, after affording such an opportunity, the Government could have validly made an order of continuation under R. 30-A (9) is already under consideration of this Court in two petitions which are to come up for hearing after the vacation, and, consequently, I refrain from expressing any opinion on it. It does, however, appear to me that, if the Government had given the requisite opportunity to the petitioner and had then proceeded to make the order under R. 30 (1) (b), no objection of substantial prejudice could have been taken on the ground of not proceeding under R. 30-A (9).Further, there might not have been any technical defect also, because the order under R. 30 (1) (b) could then be made on the basis of the material which already existed before the Government and which could lead the Government to form the opinion that the detention of the petitioner was necessary even after taking into account the explanation or the materials supplied by him. The order made under R. 30 (1) (b) completely ignoring the purpose and object of R. 30-A(9) must, in these circumstances, be held to be in contravention of the scheme of the Defence of India Rules and, consequently, must be struck down as invalid, so that the detention of the petitioner is not legalised by this fresh order under R. 30 (1) (b). 8. The cases of the remaining four petitioners only differ from the case of Ghulam Ahmad with regard to the dates of the original orders of detention under R. 30 (1) (b), the dates of invalid orders of continuation under R. 30-A (9) made in their cases without complying with the requirements indicated in Lakhanpals case, W. P. No. 258 of 1966, D/- 7-3-1967 - (AIR 1967 SC 1507 ) (supra), and in some cases the dates on which fresh orders under R. 30(1)(b) were made. These differences are, however, not at all material to the question of validity of the fresh detention orders made in their cases; and the principle which I have laid down in the case of Ghulam Ahmad, consequently, fully applies to their cases also.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. It, however, appears that the principle laid down in those two cases is not applicable to the present case, because, in the present case, the original order of detention, dated 11th March l966 was a valid order and it had completely exhausted itself when the petitioner was kept under detention for the first six months in pursuance of that order. Thereafter, any order cancelling that order, dated 11th March 1966, would be ineffective and meaningless. Further, under the scheme of the Defence of India Rules, if, without any additional grounds coming into existence, the State Government considered it necessary that the detention of the petitioner should be continued, the proper course open to the State Government was to make an order of continuation under R.A (9), after reviewing the original order within the period prescribed in that RuleIf there were no fresh or additional grounds which came into existence after 11th March 1966, the making of another fresh order under Rule 30 (1) (b) would really amount to a subterfuge adopted for the purpose of getting round the provisions of R.A (9) under which an order of continuation of detention had to be made and that order had to be a quasi judicial order and not merely an executive order. By purporting to act under R. 30 (1) (b) and passing a fresh order under it, the State Government obviously deprived the petitioner of the right of tendering an explanation or supplying materials to show that there was no justification for continuing his detention. In fact, if it were to be held that the State Government could validly make a fresh order under R. 30 (1) (b) on the same materials, on which the order, dated 11th March 1966 was made, after that order had already taken full effect, the result would be that in every case it would be open to the Government to keep on making repeated orders under R. 30 (1) (b) on the expiry of six months from each order in the case of the same detenu and, thus, avoid the requirement of making a quasi judicial order under R.A (9) As a consequence, the detenu would never get an opportunity of either submitting an explanation or supplying materials to satisfy the Government that there was no justification for further continuing his detention. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the present case is distinguishable from the two cases cited aboveRelying on this principle laid down by this Court, it was urged by learned counsel that, in the present case also, no inference could be made that the fresh order under R. 30 (1) (b) for detention of the petitioner was mala fide and, consequently, it should not be held that it is liable to be vacated.The question of applying these views to the present case does not arise, because there is no allegation that the fresh order made against the petitioner under R. 30 (1) (b) amounted to exercise of power mala fide. The ground on which that order has to be held to be invalid is entirely different. That ground is that, even though the Government may not have acted deliberately with the purpose of depriving the petitioner of his rights, the effect of that order at least is that he, in fact, is prejudiced inasmuch as he does not get an opportunity at all to submit an explanation or place other materials to correct or contradict the evidence on the basis of which the Government would have been required to make an order of continuation under R.A (9).By proceeding under R. 30 (1) (b) instead of R.A (9), which is the Rule under which, according to the scheme of the Rules, the Government should have proceeded, the Government has rendered R.A (9) ineffective. This procedure necessarily results in substantial prejudice to the petitioner. It is not a question of a mere formality or technical defectIn these circumstances, if the Government had, in fact, adopted the course of giving an opportunity to the petitioner to correct or contradict the evidence existing against him either by explanation or through other materials which he could place before the Government, and had then proceeded to make an order under R. 30 (1) (b), no such objection could have been taken, because it would have been a question of mere technicality that the order being made by the Government was one of a fresh detention under R. 30 (1) (b) instead of an order of continuation under R.. The question whether, after affording such an opportunity, the Government could have validly made an order of continuation under R.A (9) is already under consideration of this Court in two petitions which are to come up for hearing after the vacation, and, consequently, I refrain from expressing any opinion on it. It does, however, appear to me that, if the Government had given the requisite opportunity to the petitioner and had then proceeded to make the order under R. 30 (1) (b), no objection of substantial prejudice could have been taken on the ground of not proceeding under R.A (9).Further, there might not have been any technical defect also, because the order under R. 30 (1) (b) could then be made on the basis of the material which already existed before the Government and which could lead the Government to form the opinion that the detention of the petitioner was necessary even after taking into account the explanation or the materials supplied by him. The order made under R. 30 (1) (b) completely ignoring the purpose and object of R.8. The cases of the remaining four petitioners only differ from the case of Ghulam Ahmad with regard to the dates of the original orders of detention under R. 30 (1) (b), the dates of invalid orders of continuation under R.A (9) made in their cases without complying with the requirements indicated in Lakhanpals case, W. P. No. 258 of 1966, D/7 (AIR 1967 SC 1507  )(supra), and in some cases the dates on which fresh orders under R. 30(1)(b) were made. These differences are, however, not at all material to the question of validity of the fresh detention orders made in their cases; and the principle which I have laid down in the case of Ghulam Ahmad, consequently, fully applies to their cases also.