Two days before the release of the petitioner the District Magistrate of Burdwan made a fresh order under section 3 of the Act for the detention of the petitioner and based that order upon the same grounds upon which the earlier order for the detention of the petitioner had been based.
Kartick Pal and others belonging to CPI ML , being armed with lethal weapons like daggers, tangi etc.
The provisions of sub section 2 of section 14 of the Act were companysidered by this Court in the case of Masood Alam v. Union of India 2 and it was observed that the power of preventive detention being an extraordinary power intended to be exercised only in extraordinary emergent circumstances, the legislative scheme of sections 13 and 14 of the Act suggest that the detaining authority is expected to know and to take into account all the existing grounds and make one order of detention which must number go beyond a maximum period fixed.
It is the validity of this later order of detention which is number being assailed before us on behalf of the petitioner.
Your act created a general sense of insecurity and deterred the residents of the locality from following their numbermal avocation of life for a companysiderable period after the incident.
The petitioner was accordingly released on April 28, 1973.
Kartick Pal and others belonging to CPI ML being armed with gun attacked Ram Krishan Sarkar by barricading the roads with pillars and shot at him from an unlicensed gun with a view to annihilating them to promote the cause of the party to which you belong, As a result, Constable 721 Rajaram Jadav received gun shot injuries.
The petitioner is number being detained in pursuance of the fresh order of detention dated April 26, 1973.
On 14 1 72 at about 17.35 hours, you along with your associates viz.
Precisely, these are the very grounds on account of which the fresh order of detention for the petitioner has been made on April 26, 1973.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
R. 1973 8.
The order for the detention of the petitioner in the present case made on July 3, 1972 was revoked when this Court give its judgment in the case of Sambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal W.P. 266 of 1972 decided on April 19, 1973 1 .
Perusal of the grounds of detention makes it manifest that they relate to incidents which took place at a time prior to the revocation of the, earlier detention order dated July 3, 1972 in fact they relate, as they must in the very nature of things, to incidents which took place prior to the making of that order.
attacked Karunamcy Pal Congress R of Daora danga, P.S. Bhatar, Distt.
From the reply filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal it would appear that the petitioner was released on April 28, 1973 and a fresh order for the detention of the petitioner was made on April 26, 1973 by the District Magistrate of Burdwan during the pendency of the present petition The present petition, it may be mentioned, was sent from jail, by the petitioner on February 22, 1973.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KHANNA, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by Chotka Hembram for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus.
As such, those incidents companyld number provide valid grounds for the making of the subsequent detention order dated April 26 , 1973.
M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondents.
The petitioner by means of this petition challenged the validity of the aforesaid order for his detention.
The grounds of detention on the basis of which the petitioner was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate on July 3, 1972 were as under On 8 11 71 at about 12.30 hours, you along with your associates viz.
841 of 1973.
Datta, for the appellant.
An order for the detention of the petitioner was made under subsection 2 of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Act 26 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act , by the District Magistrate of Burdwan on July 3, 1972.
Burdwan and stabbed him to death near his house with a view to promoting the cause of the party to which you belong as he refused to join hands with you.
Your act created a general sense of insecurity and deterred the residents of the locality from follow in their numbermal avocations of life for a companysiderable period after the incident.
1 1973 1 S. C. C. 856 2 A. 1.
