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

They arise on the same facts and raise the same questions.2. On 13-1-1956 the Commissioner of Police, Bombay, passed orders under S.3(2), Preventive Detention Act, 4 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing the detention of the present Petitioners, and pursuant thereto, they were actually arrested on 16-The grounds on which the orders were made were formulated on 19-1-1956, and communicated to the petitioners the next day. On 21-1-1956 the Commr. reported the fact of the order and the grounds therefor to the State Government, which approved of the same on 23-1-195

Reasoning:
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).