Case: Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. The Commissioner Of Police, Greaterbombay(And Connected Pe

the communication should be made not later than 5 days from the date of the order, and as S.3 (3) was more peremptory than S.7 in that it required that the report should be made forthwith, the period allowable under S.3 (3) could not exceed 5 days, and that as in these cases the reports were sent 8 days later, they could not be held to have been sent forthwith. This argument mixes up two different matters contained in S.7.The period of 5 days provided therein is an absolute one and is independent of the period which is permissible under the expression "as soon as may be", which must, its very nature, be indefinite depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. It will be as erroneous to read 5 days into the period of allowable under the expression "as soon as may be" as to read the 12 days within which the State has to approve the order under S.3 (3) into the period which is allowable under the expression "forthwith".The result then is that the report sent by the Commissioner to the state on 21-1-1956 could be held to have been sent "forthwith" as required by S.3 (3), only if the authority could satisfy us that, in spite of all diligence, it was not in a position to send the report during the period from 13th to 21st January 1956.12. We must now examine the facts from the above standpoint. The commissioner of Police has filed an affidavit explaining why the reports were not sent till 21st January 1956, though the orders themselves had been made as early as 13th January 1956. Ever since the publication of the proposal to form a State of Maharashtra without the city of Bombay, there had been considerable agitation for the establishment of a Sanyuktha Maharashtra with the city of Bombay included in it. An action committee had been set up on 15-11-1955 for the purpose, and there had been hartal and morchas resulting in outbursts of lawlessness and violence and in the burning of a police chowki. The final decision on the question was expected to be taken and announced in the middle of January 1956, and the atmosphere was highly surcharged. It was under this situation that the Commissioner decided to take action under S.3 (2) of the Act against the leading spirits of the movement, and passed the present orders for detention against the petitioners on 13-1-1956. In his affidavit, the Commissioner states that he decided first "to locate the persons against whom orders of detention were made by me on 13-1-1956 and after having done so, to arrest all of them simultaneously so that none of them may go underground or abscond or evade execution of the detention orders". Then the affidavit goes onto state:"It was not possible for me to send the report earlier as the situation in the City of Greater Bombay was tense, pregnant with danger on 13-1-1956, and continued to be so till 16-1-1955 and actual rioting occurred during that night and those riots continued till 22-1-1950. I and my staff were kept extremely busy all throughout in maintaining law and order and simultaneously taking steps to round up miscreants. In this unusual and tense situation, it was not possible to make a report earlier than the day on which it was made."13. We see no reason for not accepting these statements. What happened on the 16th and the following days are now matters of history. The great city of Bombay was convulsed in disorders, which are among the worst that this country has witnessed. The Bombay police had a most difficult task to perform in securing life and property, and the authorities must have been working at high pressure in maintaining law and order. It is obvious that the Commissioner was not sleeping over the orders, which he had passed or lounging supinely over them. The delay such as it is, is due to causes not of his making, but to causes to which the activities of the petitioners very largely contributed. We have no hesitation in accepting the affidavit, and we hold that the delay in sending the report could not have been avoided by the Commissioner and that when they were sent by him, they were sent "forthwith" within the meaning of S.3 (3) of the Act.14. Mr. S. C. Gupta put forward some special contentions on behalf of the petitioners in C. M. Ps. Nos. 109 and 110 of 1956. He contended that as the order originally made against the petitioner in C. M. P. No. 109 of 1956 was that he should be detained in Arthur Road Prison, Bombay, the subsequent order of the Commissioner by which he was detained in Nasik Prison was without jurisdiction. It is clear from the affidavit of the Commissioner that the petitioner was not ordered to be detained in Arthur Road Prison but in Nasik Road Central Prison, and that he was kept temporarily in Arthur Road prison pending arrangements to transport him to Nasik.It was next contended that the materials on which the orders of detention were made and set out in the communications addressed to the petitioners all related to their past activities, and that they could not constitute grounds for detention in, future. This contention is clearly unfounded. What a person is likely to do in future can only be a matter of inference from various circumstances, and his past record will be valuable, and often the only record on which it could be made. It was finally contended that what was alleged against the petitioners was only that they advocated hartal, and that was not a ground for making an order of detention. But the charge in these cases was that the petitioners instigated hartal bringing about a complete stoppage of work, business and transport with a view to promote lawlessness and disorder, and that is a ground on which an order could be made under S.3 (2).

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

Explanation:
0[ds]10. We agree that forthwith in S.3(3) cannot mean the same thing as as soon as may be in S.7, and that the former is more peremptory than the latter. The difference between the two expressions lies, in our opinion, is this that while under S.7 the time that is allowed to the authority to send the communication to the detenu is what is reasonably convenient, under S. 3 (3) what is allowed is only the period during which he could not, without any fault of his own, send theargument mixes up two different matters contained inperiod of 5 days provided therein is an absolute one and is independent of the period which is permissible under the expression "as soon as may be", which must, its very nature, be indefinite depending on the facts and circumstances of thewill be as erroneous to read 5 days into the period of allowable under the expression "as soon as may be" as to read the 12 days within which the State has to approve the order under S.3 (3) into the period which is allowable under the expression "forthwith".The result then is that the report sent by the Commissioner to the state on 21-1-1956 could be held to have been sent "forthwith" as required by S.3 (3), only if the authority could satisfy us that, in spite of all diligence, it was not in a position to send the report during the period from 13th to 21st January 1956.We see no reason for not accepting these statements. What happened on the 16th and the following days are now matters of history. The great city of Bombay was convulsed in disorders, which are among the worst that this country has witnessed. The Bombay police had a most difficult task to perform in securing life and property, and the authorities must have been working at high pressure in maintaining law and order. It is obvious that the Commissioner was not sleeping over the orders, which he had passed or lounging supinely overdelay such as it is, is due to causes not of his making, but to causes to which the activities of the petitioners very largely contributed. We have no hesitation in accepting the affidavit, and we hold that the delay in sending the report could not have been avoided by the Commissioner and that when they were sent by him, they were sent "forthwith" within the meaning of S.3 (3) of theis clear from the affidavit of the Commissioner that the petitioner was not ordered to be detained in Arthur Road Prison but in Nasik Road Central Prison, and that he was kept temporarily in Arthur Road prison pending arrangements to transport him tocontention is clearlya person is likely to do in future can only be a matter of inference from various circumstances, and his past record will be valuable, and often the only record on which it could bethe charge in these cases was that the petitioners instigated hartal bringing about a complete stoppage of work, business and transport with a view to promote lawlessness and disorder, and that is a ground on which an order could be made under S.3 (2).