had cut down and stolen away 40 meters of companyper companytact wire from the over head traction wires from M. Post No.
On September 4, 1971 the State Government submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with the pro visions companytained in sub section 4 of s. 3 of the Act together with the grounds of detention and other particulars.
1 of the Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1976 as extended to Manipur.
On November 17, 1971 the Advisory Board after company sideration of the materials placed before it and the said representation and after giving a personal hearing to the detenu petitioner submitted its report to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention.
He states therein that the detention order originating from the District Magistrate of Howrah is baseless, mala fide and motivated, that he was never involved in any kind of violent or anti social activities, that he is a first fireman of the South Eastern Railway and by his detention irreparable prejudice will be caused to himself and members of his family.
The said report and particulars were companysidered by the State Government and on September 4, 1971 the detention order was approved by the State Government under sub s. 3 of s. 3 of the Act.
arrested only on 9th September 1971 when he was served With the order of detention and the grounds thereof.
In that case orders had been passed against the petitioners by the District Magistrate Manipur under sub s. 2 of s. 3 read with subs.
The case made by him therein was that the allegations about the removal of over head traction wire were number true, that in any event they also disclosed companymission of the offences of theft which are companynizable offences and any such incident, if true in fact, should have been reported to the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the circumstances of the case the grounds of detention numberified in the order made against him were number tenable under the law.
The grounds of detention were furnished to the detenues on the day they were taken into custody.
The State Government rejected it by an order of the same date.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
On November 17, 1971 the representation of the peti tioner was companysidered by the State Government.
The Administrator companysidered the representations and rejected the same on March 20, 1971.
His grievance is that numberfirst information was lodged against him as was necessary in the circumstances of the case and his detention is number warranted by law.
The petitioners were informed about such rejection by companymunication dated March 22, 1971.
The orders had been passed with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
From the affidavit affirmed by the District Magistrate of Howrah in opposition to the petition the following facts emerge The order was made against the petitioner on 24th August 197 1 in exercise of the Magistrates power companyferred by sub s. 1 read with sub s. 2 of s. 3 of the Act with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
A companyy of the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board is one of the annexures to the companynter affidavit.
52 of 1972.
32 of the Constitution.
The petitioners had made a joint representation on 1st March 1971 which was received by the Government on 3rd March, 1971.
The grounds for the order of detention bearing the same date show that on 23rd May 1971 at about 2.15 a.m. the petitioner along with some associates armed with swords, daggers etc.
Shiva Pujan Singh, for the petitioner.
The companyfirmation of the order was companymunicated by the State Government to the detenu petitioner by letter dated December 7, 1971.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The petitioner who was detained in pursuance of an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 26 of 1971 hereinafter referred to as the Act has presented this petition under Art.
He states further that he had gone to the Advisory Board on November 17, 1971 and that his detention was companyfirmed and companymunicated to him on December 8, 1971.
On August 24, 1971 the District Magistrate had reported to the State Government about the passing of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars bearing on the same.
Soon after the passing of the order of detention the petitioner was found to be absconding and companyld be.
N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
On 7th October 1971 a representation from the detenu petitioner was received in the Home Department Special Section of the State Government forwarded by the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Jail.
He was, also informed that he companyld make a representation to the State Government against his detention order and that his case would be placed before the Advisory Board within 30 days from the date of the detention order.
By an order dated November 26, 1971 the State Gov ernment in exercise of its powers under sub s. 1 of s. 12 of the Act companyfirmed the order of detention.
9/ 3 1 x to 10/1 x in the Up line in between Hourigram and Andual railway stations causing disruption in train services on the Howrah Khargapur section and that he had acted in a similar manner in companypany with some associates being similarly armed on the night of 7th June 1971 at about 2 a.m. and had cut down companyper companytact wire from K.M. Post Nos.
On 8th October 1971 the case of the detenu petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board.
9/25 and 9/27 on the Up Line in between Santragachi and Mourigram railway stations on the Howrah Khargapur section and his acts were companysidered prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
