ORIGINAL JUIRISDICTION : Petition No. 181 of 1956. Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.

T. R. Bhasin, Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.

1956. November 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS C.J.-This is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India praying for an order that the petitioner's detention be declared illegal and that he be set at liberty. The facts are shortly as follows:

The second point was raised on account of the typographical error in the copy of the Chief Secretary's affidavit, which was available to' the learned counsel, 66 In point of fact the Chief Secretary has maintained that there is a Guest House hotel at Amira Kadal. The original affidavit having been shown to the learned counsel, he has abandoned the second point. He, however, presses the first point.

Learned counsel draws our attention to Art. 22(4) of the Constitution. That clause lays down that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months except in the circumstances therein specified. Sub-cl. (b) makes it quite clear that cl. (4) does not apply to a person who is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made under sub-cls. (a) and (b) of el. (7) by Parliament, which in the case of Jammu and Kashmir has been substituted by the word 'legislature of the State' by the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, made by the President. The question is whether the petitioner's detention has been properly continued be. yond the period of three months by virtue of the provisions of s. 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act. Shri T. R. Bhas in maintains that an order must be made under s. 14 before the expiry of the period of three months after the date of the order of detention. Turning to s. 14 we find that it does not in. terms provide for the making of any formal order. It only says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act any person detained under a detention order made in any of the two classes of cases 'may' be detained or continued in detention without obtaining the opinion of an Advisory Board for a period longer than three months. There is no specific provision in the section for making any order or even such a declaration as is contemplated by the provio to s. 8(1) . Shri T. R Bhasin then contends that at any rate the word used being "may' it implies that the Government must make up its mind and when the Government so makes up its mind to deal with the petitioner's case under s. 14 , the fact of such decision should be communicated to the petitioner. In point of fact we find that the Government had appointed Shri A. H. Durani for purposes of 67 consultation under s. 14(2) on August 23, 1954, which was within two months from the date of the order of detention. It is, therefore, clear on the record that the Government had come to a decision with regard to this particular detenue against whom the order of detention, was made on the ground of his activities being prejudicial to the maintenance of public order that he should be dealt with under s. 14 and that his case should not go to the Advisory Board. We see no warrant for the contention that this decision of the Government must be communicated to the detenue. It has not been shown how the communication of this decision would have been beneficial to the detenue. Indeed in the case of Achhar Singh v. The State of Punjab (1) this Court has expressed the opinion that the omission to convey the order made under s. 1 1 of the Indian Preventive Detention Act does not make the detention illegal or result in infringement of the petitioner's fundamental right. If that be the position under s. 1 1 of the Indian Preventive Detention Act, which provides for the making of a formal order, all the more must the position be the same under s. 14 of the Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act , which does not in terms require any formal order to be made. In our opinion there is no substance in this application, which must accordingly be dismissed. Application dismissed.

(1) Petition No- 359 Of 1951, decided on October 22, 1951.