JUDGMENT
Thadani, Ag. C.J.
1. [Facts: This was a case of a de. tention Under Section 2 (1)(a), Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947. The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu were stated in these terms:
(a) That you are an active member of the Communist Party of India in Lakhimpur District, the present aim and object of which is anti-Government activity subversive of law and order.
(b) That you threatened public peace and tranquillity in Lakhimpur District by urging violent methods specially among the labouring cUeses.
(c) That your activities, e, g., speeches at publio meetings and demonstrations etc., are prejudicial to the public safety and the maintenance of public order in Lakhimpur District.
(d) That you profess Communist ideology and have actively engaged yourself to put Communist directives into effect for a ‘political struggle’ by bringing a revolution,
2. In holding that the grounds furnished were sufficient to enable the detenu to make a representation to the Provincial Government Under Section 4 of the Act their Lordships observed as follows:] In the beginning of this year, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Lodge C. J. (retired) and myself, had occasion to deal with grounds similar to the grounds which have been communicated to the petitioner in this case. In our judgment in that case (Prafulla Ranjan Dhar v. The Government of Assam), we referred to the implications of the power of the Provincial Government to withhold facts which the Provincial Government considered as being against the public interest to disclose, and illustrated the implications of the power by an example. We do not wish to repeat what has been stated in that judgment. It is sufficient to say that the grounds (b) and (d) furnished to the petitioner are such as would have enabled the petitioner to make a representation to the Provincial Government.
3. We are satisfied that the order of the Provincial Government, on the face of it, is a Valid order made under the provisions of 8. 2 (I)(a) of Act V [5] of 1947. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere in the order of detention passed against the petitioner. In our view, the petitioner has not been illegally detained. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the Rule discharged.
