1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This Rule nisi is directed against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong District, detaining the petitioner under rule 32(l)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1965.
2. Petitioner Purnendu Dastidar states that he has been a legal practitioner in the Chittagong Judge's Court since the year 1941. On 19-9-65 he was arrested from his residence and since then he has been detained without any order of detention having been served upon him at any time. He has stated that he never acted in any manner prejudicial to the security, public safety or interest or defence of Pakistan or to the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country. He was a member of the Chittagong National Awami Party and acted as the leader of a delegation of the said party that waited upon the Deputy Commissioner of Chittagong on 8-9-65 with a memorandum signifying the party's fullest service and sacrifice for the defence of Pakistan against the Indian aggression committed on 6.9-65. The petitioner has admitted that in the year 1954 he was in detention as a security prisoner.
3. Upon these facts toe petitioner has challenged the legality of his detention mainly on two grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner has not been served with any order of detention by any competent authority; and (2) that there did not exist materials. Justifying the petitioner's detention.
4. On behalf of the opposite-parties namely the Government of East Pakistan, the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong and the Superintendent, Chittagong Jail an affidavit-in-opposition sworn, by Mr. M. Ismail, Section Officer, Home (Special) Department, Government of East Pakistan has been put in. In this affidavit it has been categorically stated that the petitioner-detenu did indulge in activities prejudicial to the security, public safety or interest or-- defence of Pakistan and maintenance of peaceful conditions in the country. In paragraph 9 of the affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner had been detained a number of times on account of his prejudicial activities since the Independence and that after the release of the petitioner in the year 1955 he took leading part in organising the peasants and inciting them to commit violence. It has been further stated that the detenu until his arrest and detention under the Defence of Pakistan Rules was one of the --active members of the Communist Party (now banned), which hack been acting secretly in East Pakistan and trying to gain its objective by infiltrating into National Awami Party and Krishak Samity. It has been further stated that at a secret meeting of the workers of the District Awami Party held at Chittagong on 3-9-65 the detenu had refused to place any blame for aggression in Kashmir on India and had observed that though Pakistan had been supporting the liberation movement of the Kashmiris, yet in the home front she had been denying the restoration of democracy. The affidavit further proceeds to state that the petitioner had been duly informed of the contents of the detention order and a note to that effect was made by the Deputy Tailor of Chittagong Jail in the history ticket of the detenu. It has been asserted that the detaining. Authority had passed the order of detention after having been satisfied on the materials that the detenu was acting and was likely to act prejudicially to the security, the public safety or interest and maintenance of peaceful conditions, and the order of detention was consequently passed with a view to prevent him from so acting. It is stated that the detenu had been kept under detention during past Independence period on a number of occasions as he was considered a security risk.
5. Finally it has been stated that the petitioner had on an earlier occasion approached this Court on Writ Petition No. 48 of 1966 and had challenged the legality of his detention on similar grounds. The said petition, however, failed and it was so disposed of by the High Court on 5-4-66.
6. In reply the petitioner has reiterated the statements made by him in his petition and has denied the allegations made against him in the aforesaid affidavit-in-opposition.
7. A reference to the order of the High Court passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition shows that the grounds urged before us are almost identical with the grounds that were taken by the detenu f in his Writ Petition but the Court refused to find any substance in those grounds. In normal circumstances we should have refused to entertain the present petition on the same grounds.
8. It, however, appears that the Bench that heard and disposed of the said Writ Petition merely considered certain matters that were mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition put in on behalf of she State and thereupon held that the Court did not entertain "any doubt about the assertion of the Government that the detention was made on these grounds, then we find no reason for the petitioner to complain that there was no material for passing the detention order against the detenu Purnendu Dastidar." It does not appear whether the State had placed any records before the said Bench to satisfy it that the order of detention was justified. Consequently the Court did not apply its mind to this aspect of the case nor was it necessary for it to do so under the law as it stood then. In view, however, of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malik Ghulam Jilani and others v. The Govern--ment of West Pakistan through-the Home Secretary, Lahore and another (PLD 1967 SC 373), it has now become imperative for the High Court to look into the records of a particular case to satisfy itself whether there are reasonable grounds for detention.
9. The learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has, therefore, asked us to examine the records of the case to see whether there are materials justifying the detention of the petitioner.
10. Mr. Nurullah, learned Advocate appearing for the State, has placed before us the relevant records concerning the petitioner. On an examination of the records we find that they fully support the allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition. It is significant that the petitioner has failed to deny categorically his connection with the banned Communist Party. The petitioner's past records and his known views furnish reasonable grounds for his detention. We are accordingly of opinion that there do exist materials justifying the detention of the petitioner under rule 32(l)(b) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. We may add that in the aforesaid petition earlier this Court did not find any substance in the other ground of the petitioner, namely, that he was never served with the order of detention.
11. For the reasons stated we do not find any substance in the Rule and it is accordingly discharged.
12. Before we part with this case we should like to observe that the affidavit filed on behalf of the State does not appear to have been drawn up with that amount of care and precision that it deserved.
13. The result was that the affidavit was not fully consistent with the language of the impugned order.
14. This lack of consistency, however has not affected the legality of the order to any manner.
15. A. HYE CHOUDHURY, J.-I agree.