Dharamvir Kuslnvaha v. State of U. P. — 1991 DIGILAW 920 (ALL)

JUDGMENT N.L.Ganguly, J. 1. This writ petition is by Dharambir Kushwaha, General Manager, Dala Cement Factory, Dala, Distt. Sonbhadra for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus or any other writ or direction commanding the respondents to forthwith release the petitioner from detention and also for a writ for quashing the order dated 6-6-91 passed by the District Magistrate, Sonbhadra, under section 3 (3) of National Security Act. 1980 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). 2. Before actually considering the order of detention of the petitioner, brief facts leading to the arrest and detention of the petitioner would be necessary. The petitioner is the General Manager of Daia Cement Factory at Dala which is one of the Constituent of U. P. State Cement Corporation Limited, Churk, Distt. Sonbhadra. The State Government initiated proceedings for privatising the Cement Factory. Advertisement was published in the news paper inviting proposal from private Entrepeneurs in the last week of April 1990. Writ petition No. 26223 of 1990 was filed by number of workers of the Union of the Cement Factory. Another Writ petition No. 1003 of 1991 was also filed on behalf of the Officers Association of the Company, namely Churk Adhikari Kalyan Samiti. It appears that M/s Dalmia Industrial Limited were successful in the deal with the State Government and proceedings for privatisation of the Company was in progress. By a memorandum of understanding between the State Government and Damlias, 51% of the shares was to be transferred in favour of Dalmias Group of Industries. It was under the memorandum of understanding and also as per orders of the State Government steps were being taken for bringing on the Board of Directors of Companies, five nominations of the Dalmia Industries and alio for the appointment of one of them as Managing Director. It is noteworthy to mention that in writ petition No. 26223 of 1990, an interim stay order was passed by Mr. Justice S. C. Verma on 16-10-90 which directed ; "until further orders, the final implementation of the decision to handover the factories, run by the Corporation, shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition. However, in the meantime, other formalities may be completed". The interim order of the High Court was neither vacated nor modified and it still stands. However, in the meantime, other formalities may be completed". The interim order of the High Court was neither vacated nor modified and it still stands. The final hearing of the aforementioned two writ petitions had already commenced before the Division Bench consisting of Hon. Chief Justice and Hon. Mr. Justice R. B. Mehrotra from 30th April 1991. The hearing was continued on 16th May 1991 and 21st May 1991 but the hearing was adjourned on next day on account of the assasination of Sri Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister. The Division Bench before closing for summer vacation, was pleased to take up the petitions in chambers and directions were given by the Court the same day calling reports from the Asstt. Registrar of Companies to find out whether shares had been transferred to Dalmia Group of Industries prior to 24-5-1991. 3. It submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government and the respondents were keen to implement the transfer of shares in favour of Dalmia Group of Industries before the coming into power of the new Government. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that the State Government was keen to deliver the physical possession of the Dala Cement Factory to the representatives of Damlia Industries at the earliest. Thus under the directions of the State Government large contingent of local police and P. A. C. was posted at the Dala Cement Factory on 2-6-91. The employees and workers of the factory who were peacefully demonstrating and protesting against the action of the Administration. The petitioner submits that the police and the Mate Authorities on 2nd of June 1991 indiscreminately lathi charged and used lire arms over the peaceful workers and employees of the factory, who were agitating against the privatisation of the Factory. About 40 persons had died and very large number of persons had received injuries. The petitioners have annexed the news paper of 3rd June 1991 showing the firing of about 200 rounds and about the death and injured workers of the Factory. These facts about the lathi charge and tiring, casualties and the number of injured persons at the Factory gate and the allegations about the restrained order and the tiling of the writ petitions in this court are not controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 5. The petitioner was at his residence on 3rd and 4th of June 1991. These facts about the lathi charge and tiring, casualties and the number of injured persons at the Factory gate and the allegations about the restrained order and the tiling of the writ petitions in this court are not controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. 5. The petitioner was at his residence on 3rd and 4th of June 1991. He was arrested by the police on 4th June 1991 in pursuance of a FIR dated 2-6-91 lodged at P. S. Chopan by the police. The petitioner was arrested on 4-6-91 and since then he is confined in jail custody. While the petitioner was in jail, on 6-6-91, a notice under section 3 (3) of the National Security Act was served to him by the respondents for his detention. 6. The petitioner submitted that on 6-6-91 the respondents served to him in the evening an undated report of the Superintendent of police, Sonbhadra. A report of Station Officer, P. S. Chopan dated 5-6-91 and a copy of the Telex dated 29-5-91 and a copy of the memorandum dated 29-5-91 showing that the cash chest of Dala Cement Factory had been sealed on 29-5-91. The copies of papers in connection with Crime No. 71 of 1991 registered on 2-6-91 was served that day to the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit with the writ petition. It has been specifically stated in the supplementary affidavit that the respondents had not served the copy of the grounds of detention to him on 6-6-91. It was stated that the copy of the grounds of detention was for the first time supplied to him on 21-6-91. The petitioner, thus, pointed out that it was mandatory for the Detaining Authority to serve the grounds of detention to the detinue. Ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances for reasons to be recorded in writing not later than ten days from the date of detention to enable the detenue an opportunity for making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government as provided in section B (1) of the Act. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents and the facts as narrated in the petition in question have been controverted by the State. The original record of detention concerning the petitioner was produced by the learned Government Advocate at the time of hearing of this petition. A detailed counter affidavit has also been filed by the respondents and the facts as narrated in the petition in question have been controverted by the State. The original record of detention concerning the petitioner was produced by the learned Government Advocate at the time of hearing of this petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued the following points for assailing the order of detention of the detenue by the respondents :- (i) It has been pointed out that the petitioner was already in jail custody in pursuance of a FIR dated 2-6-91 and there was no occasion or legal necessity or justification for taking action under the provisions of National Security Act ; (ii) the grounds of detention of the detenue was vague and no effective reply could be submitted by the petitioner before the appropriate Government on account of the said reasons ; (iii) the facts and circumstances narrated above, about the steps taken by the State for privatisation of the Factory and inducting private Entrepreneurs in the public sector. The said order passed by the High Court and the pendency of the writ petition in the matter of privatisation of the Company was such act which have resulted in disatisfaction amongst the employees and workers of the Factory who had taken recourse to peaceful demonstration near the factory premises. This fact about the status ante was also not taken into consideration by the Detaining Authority. It was submitted that the State-respondents was in hurry to implement their scheme for the privatisation of the Company at any cost before the installation of the new Government. The action was malafide and motivated ; (iv) it was pointed out that grounds for detention was not supplied or communicated to the petitioner on 6-6-91 by the Detaining Authority. In the reply at the earliest the petitioner had mentioned in the reply to the appropriate Government that he was not supplied with the grounds of detention. In absence of communication and supply of the grounds or detention, the petitioner could not file effective and detailed reply to the appropriate Government which violated the provisions of Art. 22 of the Constitution, as well as, violated the rule of natural justice. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashofc Khare and Sri Surendra Nath Singh, Government Advocate at length on two dates. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Ashofc Khare and Sri Surendra Nath Singh, Government Advocate at length on two dates. I firstly take up the issue whether the Detaining Authority supplied the copy of the grounds of detention to the petitioner on 6-6-91 or not to enable him to file his reply for considerations by the appropriate Government before passing the order confirmining the detention. There is a categorical statement in the writ petition that copy of the grounds of detention was not supplied to the petitioner on 6-6-91 on which date a number of other papers had been given to him when he was in jail custody. The respondents have controverted the said allegation and stated in their counter affidavit that in fact all the papers concerning the petitioner and the grounds of detention was supplied to the detenue on 7-6-91. It further states that the petitioner had put in his signatures acknowledging the receipt of the detention papers supplied to him on 7-6-91. It thus becomes necessary for the court the examine the original record concerning the petitioner detention in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. After thorough scrutiny of the original record, it is clear that a number of papers which were given to the detenue in jail on 7-6-91, the detnue had put in signature in respect of each papers acknowledging the receipt there of. It is clear that there is no copy of grounds of detention in the original record bearing signature endorsing and acknowledging receipt of the grounds of detention on 7-6-91, Sri S. N. Singh, learned Government Advocate, had to concede before the court that in the original record, there is no copy of grounds of detention bearing any signature acknowledging receipt of the same by the petitioner on 7-6-91. but he submits that there was such a copy of grounds of detention in the original record, which appears to have been lost and the State has initiated proceedings against the erring Officers of the State for the loss of the important papers from the record Thus, the State has failed to establish the fact that copy of grounds of detention was supplied to the petitioner to enable him to submit effective and complete reply to the appropriate Government. It is wholly immaterial whether the state has taken any action against their own Officers for loss of the documents from the original record. The learned Government Advocate submitted that another copy of the grounds of detention was also supplied to the petitioner on 21-6-91 since the petitioner had falsely denied receipt of the grounds of detention He submits that petitioner was spplied with the desired copy of grounds of detention and petitioner had already received copy of all the papers concerning his detention. There was no difficulty or handicap for the petitioner to file an effective and proper reply to the notice for his detention. It is worth noting that at the time when the writ petition was filed an affidavit was sworn. On 13-6-91. the petitioner was not in possession of the grounds of detention which according to the" State also was supplied on 21-6-91 and thus a copy of the grounds of detention was filed by the petitioner along with the supplementary affidavit after the date of service of the grounds of detention to him. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no prejudice to the petitioner to make a proper and effective reply to the notice for detention and there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner for want of supply of the copy of grounds of detention. 8. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned Government Advocate that there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner even if it is assumed that copy of the grounds of detention was not supplied to the petitioner on 6/7th June 1991 as the petitioner had all the relevant papers with him which were admittedly supplied to him on 7-6-91. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hem Lal Bhandari v. State of Sikkim, AIR 1987 SC 762 , was pleased to hold that it is obligatory on the Detaining Officer to communicate to the detenue the grounds on which the order of detention has been made promptly. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than five days The detaining Authority is permitted to exceed the limitation of five days in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention under exceptional circumstances can be communicated to the detenue within a period not later than 15 days from the date of detention. This has to be done as soon as possible and ordinarily not later than five days The detaining Authority is permitted to exceed the limitation of five days in exceptional circumstances. The grounds of detention under exceptional circumstances can be communicated to the detenue within a period not later than 15 days from the date of detention. But when the Detaining Authority takes time longer than five days, he has to record reason why the grounds of detention could not be communicated within five days. The compliance of section 8 (1) of the Act is mandatory and non-compliance of the provisions renders the detention violative of Art. 22 of the Constitution. In the present case, the original record do not show that grounds of detention was ever supplied, to the detenue till 2lst June 1991 It is not the case of the State that for certain reasons recorded in writing, the detention order could not be supplied to the detenue at the earliest than that date. Their specific case was than if had been supplied on 7-6-91. I am satisfied that there is nothing in the original record to show that the grounds of detention was supplied to the petitioner-detenue. Is is not permissible in the matters relating to a personal liberty and freedom of a citizen to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the Officers, in the matter where the liberty of the citizen is involved. It is necessary for the officer to act with utmost expedition and in strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of law. 9. The other submissions of S. N. Singh, the learned Government Advocate that it was not necessary to supply the grounds of detention, in the facts and circumstances of the case as entire material concerning the petitioner's detention had already been supplied on 7-6-91. The petitioner could have submitted his representation after perusing the said papers alone. 10. The controversy about the supplying the copy of the grounds of detention and rights of citizen under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution, was considered in seven Judges decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sri Dhar Vadya, AIR 1951 SC 157 . 10. The controversy about the supplying the copy of the grounds of detention and rights of citizen under Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution, was considered in seven Judges decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sri Dhar Vadya, AIR 1951 SC 157 . I quote the Supreme Courts observation : "We think that the position will be clarified if it is appreciated in the first instance what are the rights given by Article 22 (5). The first part of Article 22 (5) gives right to the detained person to be furnished with "the grounds on which the order has been made," and that has to be done as soon as may be. "THE second right given to such person is of being afforded "the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order." It is obvious that the grounds for making the order as mentioned above are the grounds on which the detaining authority was satisfied and that it was necessary to make the order. THEse grounds therefore, must be inexistence when the order is made. By there very nature, the grounds are conclusions of facts and not a complete detailed recital of all the facts. The conclusions drawn from the available facts will show in which all the three categories of prejudicial acts the suspected activity of the particular person is considered to fall. These conclusions are the "grounds" and they must be supplied. No part of such "grounds" can be held back nor can any more "grounds'' be added there to. What must be supplied are the "grounds" on which the order has been made not nothing less" The said case was also followed in Dr. Ram Krishna Bhardwaj v. State of Dehli, AIR 1953 SC 318 In view of the settled law that supplying of grounds of detention is a mandatory Constitutional provisions within the specified period at the earliest and for the present case as provided in section 8 (1) of the Act. ft was necessary for the Detaining Authority to have supplied the grounds of detention to the detenue. ft was necessary for the Detaining Authority to have supplied the grounds of detention to the detenue. From the evidence on record and the original record produced, I have no hesitation to hold that on 7th of June 1991 there was no grounds of detention either on record nor such grounds of detention was supplied to the petitioner which is sufficient to vitiate the order of detention passed under section 3 (1) of the Act. Now I would proceed to second issue i.e. whether, the grounds for detention was vague and for want of material facts in the grounds with the result the detenu was not afforded due opportunity to make representation before the appropriate authority. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out two paragraphs from the grounds of detention, a copy of which was supplied to the petitioner on 21st June 1991, in which it was stated that "on 4-6-91 the petitioner along with the 20-25 workmen was addressing with fiery language before the general public on the road near his own residential bungalow and was instigating them...Similarly, he pointed out another paragraph in the said grounds of detention that in the general diary entry at the Police Station general diary report no. 9 at 7.10 on 5-6-91, the Sub Inspector Sheo Deo Mishra recorded that a number of labourers had assembled at the crossing of Sector-B, Obra Crossing, they were saying that the police had detained their General Manager without any justifiable reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner emphasised that non-mention with the names of the workman of the factory, who were alleged to be present along with the petitioner on 4-6-91 and the omission of the names of the labourers, who had assembled on 5-6-91 and stating that the police had unnecessarily arrested and detained their General Manager without any justifiable cause was vague assertion and on such vague assertion, no effective and proper reply could be submitted on behalf of the petitioner. 12. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Gopal Bauri v. District Magistrate, Burdwan, AIR 1975 SC 782, to lay support to his submission that non-mention of the names of the associates who were 20-25 associates of the petitioner along with whom the petitioner was addressing and delivering fiery speech on 4-6-91 before the public on the main road near his bungalow was vague for want of non disclosure of the names or 20-25 workers. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the said ruling "in case of Preventive Detention, the duty to furnish relevant material particulars in the grounds which reasonably influenced the subjective satisfaction in making the order of detention is not to be judged by what the explanation of the detenue will make, but whether the detenue will be able to make an effective representation against the order. The possibility or probability of detenue ultimate denial of the allegations is not relevant in that circumstances ........" "First case is subjective satisfaction was influenced by an unreal and non existent material circumstances, the District Magistrate not having considered whether the associates could be in fact an associate of the detenue. In the second case a reasonable opportunity has not been given to detenue to know the very relevant material particulars in the grounds to after make and affective representation against the order. In either case, the order will be recun as invalid under law." 13. The learned Government Advocate cited, S. K Hasan Ali v. State of West Bengal, AIR 19 72 SC 2390 where it was held that : "Omission to mention the names of the associates in the grounds of detention would not render the grounds as vague when date, time and place was specified. The only question which is to be judged is whether the want of disclosure of the name of associates handicapped the detenue in making an effective representation against the order." The aforesaid case of the Supreme Court was followed in Milan Banik v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1974 SC 1215. The question whether the non detention rendered it vague and the detenue was handicaped in making an affective representation looses its importance in the present case. As already held above, the grounds of detention was not at all supplied to the detenue along with the other papers by the Detaining Authority on 6/7-6-91. The question whether the non detention rendered it vague and the detenue was handicaped in making an affective representation looses its importance in the present case. As already held above, the grounds of detention was not at all supplied to the detenue along with the other papers by the Detaining Authority on 6/7-6-91. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the question of vagueness need not detain the court from further deciding on the issues. 14. The next issue for consideration is whether the Detaining Authorities were legally justified in proceedings under the provisions of the National Security Act against the petitioner when he was admittedly confined to jail. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Smt. Sashi Agarwal v. State of U. P., AIR 1988 SC 596 , and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah, AIR 1986 SC 315 . To support his submission that the orders under section 3 of the Act was passed in these two cases by the Detaining Authority on the ground that the detenue was likely to be bailed out and there was enough possibility of his being bailed out and the grounds for detention in these two cases were also that the detenue was under trial prisoner was likely to get bail. In the said circumstances, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order under section 3 of the Act passed against the detenu on the ground that there was no material on record to show that the detenue, if released on bail, was likely to continue activities prejudicial to the maintenance to public order. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited Smt. Punam Late v. M. L. Vadwan, AIR 1987 SC 2098 , to show that the Detaining Authority was fully aware and conscious of the fact that the detenue was already confined in jail custody. The jurisdiction of the Detaining Authority in making an order of preventive detention is not ousted merely on the ground that on the date of passing of the order for preventive detention, the person was confined in jail custody. The facts and circumstance was to be looked into and it is to be seen that inspite of the fact that the detenue was detained in custody in jail, yet the preventive detention was necessary. The facts and circumstance was to be looked into and it is to be seen that inspite of the fact that the detenue was detained in custody in jail, yet the preventive detention was necessary. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Murari v. State of U. P., AIR 1988 SC 1835 and another case law AIR 1988 SC 1175 on the same point. The only question which is to be considered by the Detaining Authority is the objective satisfaction of the detaining authority that the detention was necessary to prevent the detenue from indulging in the activities prejudicial to the State. Thus, in view of settled law, as stated above, and in view of the specific findings that the Detaining Authority was satisfied that the order for preventive detention against the petitioner was necessary, for maintenance of public order. The other issue material for the decision of the present case is stated in para 9 (iii) of this judgment. The petitioner in para nos. 1 to 14 of the writ petition has stated in detail about the steps taken by the State for privatisation of the three Cement Factories of the U. P. State Cement Cor- poration Limited and the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 26223 of 1990. The counter affidavit of Sri K S. Singh District Magistrate in para 3 of the counter affidavit denied to have any concern with the allegations made in paras 1 to 14 of the writ petition concerning the privatisation of the Company. He has stated that these facts are not relevant for adjudicating the validity of the detention order passed against the petitioner under the National Security Act. This statement of the District Magistrate is not correct that the aforementioned facts called for no reply on behalf of the District Magistrate as according to him it had no concern with the detention order. The fact that this Court had passed interim order dated 16-10-90 in Writ Petition No. 26223 of 1990 slaying the Final implementation of the decision to hand over the Factories run by the Corporation was a restraint order against the State. In the First phase of the General Election of the Parliament and the Assembly was held on 20th May 1991 and the second phase of poling was postponed on account of the sad assassination of the former Prime Minister Sri Rajiv Gandhi. In the First phase of the General Election of the Parliament and the Assembly was held on 20th May 1991 and the second phase of poling was postponed on account of the sad assassination of the former Prime Minister Sri Rajiv Gandhi. The State Government had already undertaken the steps for privatisation of the Cement Factories of the U. P. Cement Corporation Ltd. but on account of the interim stay order dated 16-10-90 passed by the High Court, the State was not in a position to complete the finalisation of transfer of physical possession of the Cement Factories to the Dalmia Group of Industries. The second phase of election was postponed but it was sure to be held in the near future. It appears that the State issued instructions to the local Administration to seal the cash chest of the Dala Cement Factory on 29-5-91. It appears that the State Government was keen to enter into the factory premises in order to get the original shares certificates, cash accounts and as also to deliver the physical possession of the factory to the representative of the Dalmia Group of Industries. It has been stated in para 13 of the writ petition that there was a prevailing practice in the Company for the last several years for distribution the salary to all the workers in three Companies in cash and in accordance with the aforesaid practice the amount of cash was kept in each of the Cement Factories in safe which was fully insured. The amounts kept in the safe was for distribution of the salary to the workers and employees of the Company in the month of May 1991. Besides the cash amount, original shares certificates were also kept in the said safe. These facts have not been controverted by the counter affidavit of the District Magistrate. The respondents filed a copy of the radio-gram sent by the State Government dated 29th May 1991 by which the directions were issued for the Executive for ceasing the amount kept in the safe and the same be deposited in the Bank account of the U. P. Cement Corporation at the three places. The respondents filed a copy of the radio-gram sent by the State Government dated 29th May 1991 by which the directions were issued for the Executive for ceasing the amount kept in the safe and the same be deposited in the Bank account of the U. P. Cement Corporation at the three places. This appears to be a camouflage for interferring with the day-to-day working of the Company and a devise to get hold of the original shares certificates kept in the safe for the purpose to transfer the physical possession of the factory to the representatives of Dalmia Group of Industries. The District Magistrate in his counter affidavit admitted the issuance of the wireless to the Executive of District Mirzapur for ceasing the amount kept in the safe of the Company. The allegation of the paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition was denied to the extent that the police force reached Dala on 29-5-91 and not on 2-6-91. In para no. 23 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that the order of preventive detention has been passed malafide for ever-riding the orders of the High Court and facilitating the delivery of physical possession of the Cement Factories to the representatives of the Dalmia Industries Ltd., in defiance of the orders of the High Court. It is not disputed by the State respondent that the cash amount for payment of salary to the workers and employees to the Factory used to be kept in the safe which was fully ensured for last several years. If the State Government had any objection to this, there was no difficulty in issuing a direction to the authorities of the Company/Corporation itself to deposit the entire cash amount kept in the safe in a scheduled bank instead the orders for seizure of the safe and amount kept there. That was not done for the reasons best known to the respondents and a seizure order was issued by the State Government by wireless. Thus, the Executive and Police were given all powers to enter and cease the premises of the Factory and even to cease the share certificates . kept therein. There was a resentment in the workers of the Factory and the Workers and employees of the Factory had resorted to peaceful demonstration against the process of privatisation. Thus, the Executive and Police were given all powers to enter and cease the premises of the Factory and even to cease the share certificates . kept therein. There was a resentment in the workers of the Factory and the Workers and employees of the Factory had resorted to peaceful demonstration against the process of privatisation. The action taken by the police and the FIR lodged by the Station Officer of Police Station Mahima Pratap Rao show the result of the hasty action of the State Government in the process of privatisation of the Company, so that a change of hands could be made before the new Government comes in power. These facts no doubt have been denied half-heartedly in the counter affidavit but the significance of the fact in view of the circumstances prevailing then, cannot be ignored. It cannot be said that the respondents-State was acting bonafide and the State was acting in accordance with law when the background of the hasty steps initiated by the State Government for handing over the shares certificates and physical possession to the representatives of Dalmia Industries, The Senior Officer of the Company, the petitioner we thus taken into custody after the FIR so that there could be no resistance in smooth handing over of possession to the representatives of the Dalmia Group of Industries. Thus, the action of the State Government cannot be said to be bonafide. 15. After due considerations of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioner is vitiated. On the first ground that the petitioner was not supplied with the grounds of detention on 6-7th June 1991 to enable him to make an effective representations before the competent authority and also in the last grounds that the action of the respondents was not bonafide in passing the orders for detaining the petitioner under the Act. 16. The writ petition is allowed. The order of detaining of the peti- tioner is quashed and set aside. The detenue be set free forthwith. The cost of the petition be paid to the petitioner by the State which I assess Rs. 2000/-. A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges today. Petition allowed.