Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It was argued that at the very outset'these allegations import nothing more than an exercise of functions such as the infliction of fines and excommunication which the peti- tioner as head of the caste had authority to do. They do not touch any of the matters covered by section 3 (1) (a) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, under which the petitioner is detained. For example, they do not touch the security of the State or the maintenance of public order or any of the other matters specified in section 3. They are therefore irrelevant to the detention, and as it is impossible to say how far these irrelevant matters influenced the detention, the petitioner is entitled to release. Reliance was placed upon certain observations of the Federal Court in Rex v. Basudev(1). We think it unnecessary to examine this point because we do not think the ground is irrelevant nor do we agree that it means what the petitioner says. In our opinion, the grounds of detention must be regarded as a whole and when that is done the relevance of the first ground becomes plain. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that he aimed at setting up a parallel government in the Uran Peta area and that in order to achieve that end he did various acts such as intimidating the workers in the salt pans with threats of murder, and his own workers with threats of death, unless they carried out his (1) [1949] F.C.R. 657 at 651.

orders; and among the lesser instances given to illustrate the exercise of parallel governmental authority are the ones set out in the first ground, namely the infliction of fines with the sanction of excommunication and boycott to ensure their payment and due obedience to his orders. This point has no force and is decided against the petitioner. It will not be open to him to re-agitate this afresh when his case is reheard on the remaining issues.

All the four cases will now be set down for hearing on the remaining points which arise in them. As they do not involve constitutional issues they need not go before a Constitution Bench.