Train guard RPF party challenged you and your associates when you hurled bombs towards the RPF party.
RPF RK Sitaram Rai fired one round in self defence when you and your associates fled away leaving behind three chests of tea at the P.O. Your action caused disruption of train service for a companysiderable time and affected supplies and services, You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
Under Section 10 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Act 26 of 1971.
your case shall be placed before Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of your detention under the order.
The affidavit also companytained the statement It appears from the records that the petitioner is a numberorious wagon breaker operating near Dum Dum Junction Railway Station.
In the affidavit in opposition to the petition, the official companycerned, who had passed the detention order, stated The running goods train as stated therein actually means a goods train which bad companye to a stop due to traffic restriction and number actually a running one as sought to be suggested by the petitioner.
Under Art 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
You are also informed that under Section 11 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Act 26 of 1971 the Advisory Board.
An annexure to the affidavit filed by a Special Secretary in the, Home Department of the Government of West Bengal, who was the District Magistrate companycerned when the impugned detention order was made against the petitioner,is a companyy of the petitioners representation addressed to the Government In the representation as Well as in the petition before us, the petitioner asserts that the allegations against him are absolutely untrue In his application to this Court he states that it is palpably false and impracticable to allege that the petitioner with some associate companymitted theft of some tea chests from a running, wagon and that he fled When challenged, leaving behind three chests of tea at the P.O Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand what is meant by the P.O. In his representation to the Government, the petitioner had submitted that there was numberevidence that he was identified by anybody as a participator in the incident.
shall if you desire to be so heard, hear you in person, and, if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board, you shall intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government.
After giving what is marked as ground number 1 only, implying thereby that there was numberother ground of detention, the document proceeds You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation shall be addressed to the Assistant Secretary Home Special Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you have been detained as early as possible.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition NO.
845 of 1973.
K. Chakravartyand G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. The petitioner, a citizen of India, has filed this habeas companypus petition challenging order of his detention, dated 24 11 1172 passed under Section 5 clause a of Maintenance of Internal Security.
N. Jain, for the petitioner.
R S when the train slowed down for traffic restriction and companymitted theft in respect of tea chests.
Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to is the Act It appear that the petitioner was actually arrested on 20 11 1972 and that the detention order was passed subsequently on 24 11 1972, and, on that very date, the petitioner was served with the document companytaining sole ground of detention given is follows That on 11 10 72 at about 01.55 hrs.,
you along with your associates, being armed with bombs and other weapons, victimised wagon No.
NR 17393 Ex Bro to KPD attached to running goods train in EC 249 DN near the Booster Sub station of Dum Dum Jn.
