S.17-Grounds of detention to the detenu for representation, held, sufficient in the present case-Satisfaction for detention is not the satisfaction of the Government but of the Advisory Board. Santosh Kumar Vs. Government of E Pakistan (1966) 18 DLR 539
-Detaining authority must satisfy the Court that detention was legal. Ibid.
Rule issued does not become infructuous because by the time when it came for disposal of the detention order it spent its force.
Held: The petition as well as the Rule were perfectly in order when the Rule was issued and it is only during the pendency of this Rule that the said order died a natural death and in its place a fresh or- der, namely, the order dated the 28th of January, 1966, was passed which was served on the detenu only on the 29th of January, 1966. In these circum- stances, it cannot be said that the petitioner should be denied the relief if he is really entitled to one merely because he has not made a fresh application challenging the validity of the order dated the 28th of January, 1966, and obtaining a Rule thereon, Son- tosh Kumar Banerjee Vs. Govt. of East Pakistan (1966) 18 DLR 539.
Grounds of detention supplied to the detenue, when very vague, deprives the detenu of his right to make effective representation against detention- Detention in such a case to be declared illegal. Amu- ruddin Ahmed, Vs. Govt. of E. Pak. (1965) 17 DLR 160
-Comelius, C. J. (Expressing a dissential view from other members of the Bench):
Furnishing of particulars for the purpose of representation.
The view expressed by the Division Bench of the Dacca High Court in the case of Fazlul Karim, namely, that grounds stated in the form used in that case, which has been followed in material respects in the present case, are grounds in compliance with the requirements of the Constitution. Government of East Pakistan Vs Rowshan Bijaya (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 214
-Action under section 17 of the East Pakistan Public Safety Ordinance, 1958 can be taken in the reasonable belief that it is necessary to detain a person in order to prevent the doing of the prejudicial ACL Government of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Bi- jaya (1966) 18 DLR(SC) 214.
S.17(1)(a)-Advisory Board to look and con- sider the case of detenu with Home Secretary as one of its members who presides over the Department which deals with detenus-Such Board with Home Secretary as one of its Members is against the spirit of the Constitution. Sadek All Vs. Govt. of E. Pak (66) 18 DLR 56
S.19 Grounds supplied vague-They should be so definite as to enable the detenu to make a representation.
The grounds supplied to the detenu runs thus-
"The Government of East Pakistan have reliable information that during the months of September and December 1962, May 1963, February and March 1964 at Dacca, you have been committing acts in a manner, Le. in meetings and otherwise, which was intended to or were likely to promote feelings of en- may or hatred between class of people, to encourage interference with the maintenance of law and order und also to excite disaffection towards the govt. established by law.
"lurnishing of any more Facts and particulars than these stated above would be against public interest.
"That all your activities mentioned above threaten and are likely to endanger the maintenance of public order and public safety in this province". Held: The grounds referred to above supplied the detenu do not give any indication by the words "meetings and otherwise" of the nature of activities that he was carrying on, which could be termed prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public safety in the province. Sadek Ali Vs. Govt of East Pakistan (1966) 18 DLR 56.
S. 19(c)(2)-Prohibition regarding production of witness--Cannot be objected to. Govt. of E. Pa Vs. Rowshan Bijaya (1966) 18 DLR(SC) 214.
S. 41-Question of the validity of an Arrest.
The question of the validity of an arrest under section 41 can be raised before a Court. If there was no immediate report to the provincial government, or there was unreasonable delay in making the re-port-Whereas the section requires that it should be made forthwith-The arrest itself might be attacked as being vitiated. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Bijaya (1966) 18 DLR(SC) 214.
-Arrest must be based on reasonable grounds-Except under conditions of war, personal liberty of a citizen cannot be allowed to be taken away by an executive fiat. No grounds specified for arrest-Arrest illegal-Subsequent order for detention, original order being illegal, is also illegal- Determinations of the grounds of satisfaction must precede the order of detention-Detenu after arrest not produced before a Magistrate nor furnished with the grounds of arrest, violates provisions of the Fundamental Rights. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Bijaya (1966) 18 DLR(SC) 214.
-Grounds of arrest must be furnished for representation-The order that the detenu shall be in custody "until further orders", defective. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Bijaya (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 214
-Detention without service of grounds invalid-All necessary allegations to be supplied to the detenu. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Rijaya (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 214.
-Under section 41, the decision is based on appreciation of a concrete fact, not speculation. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Rijaya (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 214.
-Action taken in the case under the section is illegal to the extent of its inconsistency with para-2 (1)(2) of the Fundamental Rights void. Govt. of East Pakistan Vs. Rowshan Rijaya (1966) 18 DLR (SC) 214.
-Officer arresting a detenu under the section is to satisfy the Court that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion that the detenu was concerned in the prejudicial acts that is, suspicion must have a reasonable basis. Rowshan Bijaya Vs. Govt. of East Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
-Section 41 is violative of right of freedom of movement. Rowshan Bijaya Vs Govt. of East Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
-An order extending and continuing a detention under an initial illegal order is itself illegal. Rowshan Bijaya Vs Govt. of Ear Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1 -Extension of an illegal order of detention is not a technical error. Rowshan Bijaya Vs Govt. of East Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
-Grounds of detention must not be vague and indefinite but must be such that a layman detenu can understand what they are in order to enable him to make an effective representation on the basis of which the authority concerned may make an order of release. Roswshan Bijaya Vs. Govt. of East Paki- stan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
-Sufficiency of particulars conveyed to a detenu to enable him to make an effective representation is a justiciable issue. Rawshan Bijaya Vs. Govt of East Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
Court can release a detenu if grounds of detention served on him are not sufficient, exact or precise to enable him to make an effective representaion. Rawshan Bijaya Vs. Govt of East Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR 1.
