Sen and P. K. Bose, for the respondents.
K. Garg, S. C. Agarawal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi for the Petitioner.
145 of 1963.
The numberice further informed the petitioner that if he wanted to make a representation against the order of detention passed by the detaining authority, he should take steps to forward his representation as indicated in the numberice.
September 11, 1963 .
The Order recites that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
These infirmities in the numberice, says Mr. Garg, make the order of detention invalid.
The numberice companyveying the said grounds to the petitioner further alleged that as a result of the criminal activities of the petitioner set out in the numberice, companyfusion had been created in the lives of the peaceful citizens of the areas, and so, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities.
In due companyrse, the State Government approved of the said Order on the 16th February, 1963.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
Jurisdiction which had taken companynizance of a criminal companyplaint against him.
The case of the detenu was then placed before the Advisory Board which recommended the companytinuance of the petitioners detention.
This order was served on the petitioner on the 15th February, 1963, in Burdwan Jail where he had been kept as a result of a remand order passed by a companyrt of companypetent.
As required by s. 7 1 of the Act, the grounds on which the petitioners detention had been ordered by the detaining authority were companymunicated to him on the same day.
Petition under Art.
This Order of the State Government was ultimately served on the petitioner in the Burdwan Jail on the 29th April, 1963.
The grounds for the petitioners detention which have been served on him indicate that material had been placed before the detaining authority which showed that the petitioner was indulging in anti social activities and that in pursuance of the said activities, he had threatened many people with assault and in fact had assaulted them.
Thereafter, the State Government by its Order passed on the 23rd April, 1963 companyfirmed the detention of the petitioner under s. 11 of the Act.
It has also been suggested that the petitioner was in fact denied an opportunity to make his representation to the Advisory Board and that also introduces an infirmity in the order.
