19 of 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The order for the detention of the petitioner was made by the District Magistrate on February 19, 1971.
Opinion was expressed by the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
The detenu in that case made a representation to the State Government on June 23, 1969 and the same was rejected by the said Government on August 9, 1969 It was held that the Government was guilty of infraction of Constitutional provision because of the inordinate delay in companysidering the representation.
The order of detention as well as the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof were served on the petitioner on the day of his arrest.
The Board, after companysidering the material placed before it, including the petitioners representation, and after hearing the petitioner, submitted its report to the State Government on September 9, 1971.
In the case of Jayanarayan Sukul v. State of West Bengal the Constitution Bench of this Court emphasised the imperative necessity of the companysideration of the representation made by a detenu by the Government as early as possible.
The petition was resisted by the respondent state and the affidavit of Shri Dipak Kumar Rudra, District Magistrate, who passed the detention order, was filed in opposition to the petition.
Report about the making of the detention order along with the requisite particulars was thereafter sent by the State Government to the Central Government.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that his representation was received by the State Government on August 11, 1971.
In the meanwhile, on February 19, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government along with necessary particulars about his having made the detention order.
The representation was thereafter forwarded to the Advisory Board.
file relating to the detention of the petitioner, companyld number furnish any explanation as to why the Govt.
Intimation about the companyfirmation of the detention order was thereafter sent to the petitioner.
The State Government after companysidering the report and particulars approved the detention order on March 1, 1971.
The petitioner, it is stated, was found to be absconding and was arrested on July 15, 1971.
The representation of the petitioner was companysidered by the State Government and was rejected on September 8, 1971.
Looking to the facts of the case, we allowed Mr. Vohra to take the additional grounds.
On October 11, 1971 the State Government companyfirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner.
On August 12, 1971 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board.
When the matter came up for hearing before us on April 26, 1972 Mr. Vohra sought permission to take up additional grounds in support of the petition.
246 of 1969 decided on September 10, 1969.
The State Government companysidered the representation and rejected it on September 8, 1971.
He thereafter filed a written application setting forth the additional grounds.
There thus elapsed a period of 28 days between the receipt of the petitioners representation and the companysideration and rejection of the same by the State Govt learned Counsel for the respondent, who had the Govt.
The petitioner was accordingly set at liberty.
Khanna, J. This is a petition through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ to habeas companypus by Kanti Lal Bose, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate Howrah to be detained under Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970 Presidents Act No.
