there is numberaffidavit by the superintendent of po1ice sealdah who is alleged to have made further enquiries.
we are stating our reasons for the order.
on i july 1969 the state government placed the case of the petitioner before the advisory board under section 9 of the act together with the said representation.
on 29 august 1969 the governumber rejected the petitioners representation.
when the present writ petition came up for hearing on 30 september 1969 before the bench companysisting of sikri mitter and reddy jj.
the state.
2 1970 1 s.c.r.
sen gupta is of little value.
the only companytention on behalf of the petitioner was that though the petitioner made the representation on 23 june 1969 the government did number companysider the said representation with reasonable and proper expedition.
1969 and was rejected by the government on 16 august 1969.
railway police took a little time to submit a report thirdly the deponent after being satisfied about anti social activities of the petitioner informed the state government on 12 august 1969 to the effect that he did number recommend the release of the petitioner and fourthly that the state government on 19 august 1969 rejected the petitioners representation.
this companyrt concluded in the case of shyamal chakraborty 2 by stating that the state government would deal with the representation and pass a suitable order.
this companyrt did number accept the companytention of the petitioner that there was any breach of section 7 of the act on companysideration of the facts that the detenu did number choose to make a representation till after the advisory board had dealt with the matter and further that the state government was in the process of dealing with the representation and the detenu did number state that the grounds of detention were false.
number 246 of 1969 decided on 10 9 1969.
the advisory board made its report on i i august 1969.
in the case of khairul haque 1 the petitioner made a representation on 23 june 1969.
the deponent stated first that he caused further enquiries to be made through the superintendent i railway police after he had received the representation of the petitioner from the state government secondly that the superintendent.
on 28 march 1969 numberice was issued under article.
there the representation of one detenu was re ceived on 29 may 1969 and was rejected on ii august 1969.
32 of the companystitution of india for a writ in the nature of habeas companypus.
the detenu was arrested on 13 numberember 1968.
in the case of durga show and ors 2 three petitioners were set at liberty.
on 14 june 1969 the governumber was pleased to approve the order of detention and on the same day the governumber sent the report to the central government under section 3 4 of the act together with the grounds of detention.
the detenu thereafter on 13 or 16 january 1969 made a representation.
on behalf of the state of west bengal it was companytended first that the matter was referred to the advisory board along with the petitioners representation and the state government companysidered the report of the advisory board and secondly the affidavit of rathindra nath sen gupta affirmed on 19 september 1969 will show that enquiries were made after the petitioner had made the representation and the government therefore companysidered the representation.
on 13 august 1969 the advisory board after companysideration of the materials placed before it was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner on 19 august 1969 the state government is alleged to have rejected the petitioners representation.
the disposal of the representation by the government after the receipt of the report of the advisory board was found by this companyrt to raise a doubt there whether the government companysidered the representation in an independent manner.
the matter was referred for decision by a larger bench to companysider as to what would be the question of period within which the government companyld dispose of the representation of the detenu because it was felt that there was an apparent companyflict between the cases of shyamal chakraborty 2 and khairul haque 1 .
by an order dated 26 august 1969 the governumber was pleased to companyfirm the order of detention of the petitioner.
the importance of the matter lies in the fact that it is a case of preventive detention and the personal liberty of a citizen is under companysideration of the state government.
on 9 june 1969 information was given to the state government.
on 12 august 1969 the governumber companyfirmed the order of detention.
the delay was number explained in the case.
the affidavit of rathindra nath.
this independent consideration by the appropriate government is implicit in article 22 of the companystitution.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 258 of 1969.
on 6 january 1969 the governumber was pleased to companyfirm the order of detention after the advisory board had given opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner.
p. mitra g. s. chatterjee for sukumar basu for the respondent.
in the third case the representation of the detenu was received on 28 june 1969 and was rejected on 14 july 1969.
on i april 1969 the companymissioner of police informed the home department that he did number recommend the release of the petitioner.
the order of detention can be passed by the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate or the companymissioner of police or the companylector.
chakravarty for the petitioner.
at the companyclusion of the hearing of this petition on 15 october 1969 we directed the release of the petitioner and stated that the reasons would be given later on.
ray j. the petitioner made an application under article 32 of the companystitution requiring the respondent to show cause as to why the petitioner should number be released.
the preventive detention act companyfers powers on the central government or the state government to make an order for detention of a person.
the state government shall as soon as may be report the fact to the central government.
on 5 june 1969 the district magistrate 24 parganas west bengal made an order under section 3 2 of the preventive detention act 1950 hereinafter called the act for the detention of the petitioner.
petition under art.
order we have heard learned companynsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the state of west bengal.
when an order is made by any of these officers he shall forthwith report the fact to the state government to which he is subordinate together with the grounds and numbersuch order shall remain in force for more than 12 days after the making of the order unless it is approved by the state government.
under section 7 of the act grounds of order of detention are to be disclosed to the persons affected by the order number later than 5 days from the date of detention and the act further requires to afford the person affected by the order the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate government.
the petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith.
one will look in vain into the affidavit of the deponent to find out as to when the deponent entrusted the said enquiry to the superintendent railway police and further as to what time was taken for enquiry and report.
the companyrt is entitled to knumber the time and the steps taken along with the nature of the enquiry.
in anumberher case the representation of the detenu was receiver on 18 june.
on 7 june 1969 the petitioner was arrested and on the same day grounds of detention were served on the petitioner.
on 23 june 1969 the petitioner made a representation to the state government.
abdul karim and others v. the state of west bengal writ petition number 327 of 1968 decided on january 31 1969 .
