Preventive Detention Act 4 of 1950, ss. 3(3) and 3(4)-Section 3(3) requiring District Magistrate to report order of detention to State Government forthwith-Meaning of forthwith-State Government's order whether must be communicated to detenu Communication under s. 3(4) by State Government to Central Government-Effect of delay- As soon as may be in s. 3(4), meaning of Detention whether mala fide-Grounds whether vague-Grounds of detention supplied in language not known to detenu--Effect of delay in raising objection.

The petitioners were arrested and detained on February 11, 1968 under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 by the orders of the District Magistrate, Tripura. They challenged their detention on the following among other grounds: (i) that the District Magistrate passed the orders of detention on February 9, 1968 but made his report to the State Government only on February 13 and therefore the report was not made forthwith as required by s. 3(3); (ii) that the State Government did not communicate the approval to the detenus and without such communication the order could not be effective; (iii) that the State Government recorded its approval under s. 3(3) on February 19 but communicated it to the Central Government only on February 22 and this was not done as soon as may be within the meaning of s. 3(4); (iv) that the grounds supplied were vague; (v) that the detention order was mala fide. One of the petitioners also relied on the fact that the grounds were supplied to him in English which he did not understand.