@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. These three applications have been filed as early as January 1950 on behalf of (1) Banot Sadhu, (2) Mooda Narsingya and (3) Banot Munja to secure their release from improper detention. The applications allege the date of their arrest to be July 1949 and to their being in jail since that day. After the applications were admitted, there were several adjournments and on 8-5-1950, notices were ordered to be issued to the Superintendent of Jail, Jalna, to show cause why the applications should not be granted. Before the date fixed for hearing, the Jail authorities furnished to this Court three copies of detention orders under S. 3 of the Preventive Detention Act. On 5-6-1950 notices were issued to the Advocate-General for argument, but on 22-6-1950, the Government Advocate stated that no reply has been received from the Government and there was nothing on record to indicate that the detents have been informed of the grounds of detention. On that day, therefore, orders were issued to the Superintendent of Jail, Jalna, to produce the detenus before this Court on 29-6-1950 and the Government Advocate was also asked to furnish copies of grounds of detention and to be ready to argue the applications on merit. The Advocate-General has frankly admitted today that he has received no instructions from the Government regarding the grounds of detention nor has he any information to show whether the detenus have been served with the grounds of detention. Under S. 7, Preventive Detention Act, such grounds must be communicated as soon as may be so that the detenu may have the earliest opportunity of representing against the order. The detenus have been in jail for nearly eleven months and there is no information forthcoming whether such steps as are compulsory u/s 7 of the Act have been taken. It cannot be disputed that non-compliance with the provisions of Section 7 makes the detention improper. It is necessary to observe that if imprisonment of a person is to stand, all steps legalising that incarceration must be carefully observed and if authorities concerned fail to observe any step with extreme regularity the Courts of law will not allow the imprisonment, to continue. Because we are not satisfied that the provisions of S. 7 of the Preventive Detention Act have been strictly complied with, the detentions under consideration cannot be allowed to continue, and we direct that (1) Banot Sadhu s/o Yenkya, (2) Mooda Narsingya s/o Kesha and (3) Banot Munja s/o Nausha be released immediately and their further detentions are illegal. This order will govern the other two applications.
