Raghubar Dayal ORDER
No. 3912 C. Dated, Patna, the 9th August 1965
Whereas I., J. N. Sahu, District Magistrate, Patna, am satisfied with respect to the person known as Dr. Ram, Manohar Lohia, Circuit Houses, Patna, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of law and order, it is necessary to make an order that he be detained.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause [b] of sub clause [i] of rule 30 of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, read with Notification No. 180/CW, dated the 20th March 1964, of the Government of Bihar, Political [Special] Department, I hereby direct that the said Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia be arrested by the police wherever found and detained in the Central Jail, Hazaribagh, until further orders.
Sd/- J. N. Sahu,
9/8/1965.
District Magistrate, Patna
Sd/- Ram Manohar Lohia,
10th August - 1.40."
21. Dr. Lohia was lodged in the Hazaribagh Central Jail at 3.30 p.m. on August 10, 1965. He sent a letter in Hindi together with an affidavit sworn in the jail to the Chief Justice, which was received on August 13, 1965, in the Registry of this Court. Although the petition was somewhat irregular, this Court issued a rule and as no objection has been taken on the ground of form we say nothing more about it.
22. In his affidavit Dr. Lohia stated that he was arrested at midnight on August 9, 1965 and was told that it was on charges of arson but later was served with the order of detention and that in this way his arrest for a substantive offence was turned into preventive detention. He further stated that the order of detention bowed that he was to be detained in Bankipur Jail but the name of the Jail was scored out and "Central Jail, Hazaribagh" was substituted which led him to conclude that typed orders of detention were kept ready and that the District Magistrate did not exercise his mind in each individual case. He contended that his detention under Rule 30(1) (b) was illegal because, according to him, that rule dealt with prejudicial activities in relation to the defence of India and civil defence and not with maintenance of law and order of a purely local character. He alleged that the arrest was mala fide and malicious; that it was made to prevent him from participating in the House of the People which was to go into Session from August 16 and particularly to keep him away from the debate on the Kutch issue. He further alleged that he had only addressed a very large gathering in Patna and had disclosed certain things about the Bihar Government which incensed that Government and caused them to retaliate in this manner and that detention was made to prevent further disclosures by him.
23. In answer to Dr. Lohia's affidavit two affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondents. One affidavit, filed by the District Magistrate, Patna, denied that there was any malice or mala fides in the arrest of Dr. Lohia. The District Magistrate stated that he had received a report from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, in regard to the conduct and ac........