you along with your associates being armed with lethal.
The State Government thereafter submitted the case of the petitioner to the Advisory Board along ,with his representation and the Advisory Board, after bearing the ,petitioner and taking into account the representation made by him, ,made a report to the State Government on 6th March, 1974 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
The order of detention was in fact passed in anticipation of the petitioner being released as a result of dropping of the criminal case against him.
The record of the case which was produced before us by the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State showed that the criminal case was actually pending against the petitioner on.
The District Magistrate, therefore, passed the order of detention on 29th December, 1973.
Your action created such panic in the locality and the local people felt a sense of insecurity.
3rd January, 1974.
weapons including fire Arms raided the house of Ananta Keyal of Naitala under Diamond Harbour P.S. and looted away cash, ornaments etc.
At the time of operation you fixed from your fire arms indiscriminately disregarding human lives and their safety.
Now, if the criminal case were dropped, the petitioner would have to be released and in that event he would be free to carry on his nefarious activities.
As a result, the house owner Ananta Kayal and his close door neighbour Ajit Kayal sustained grievous gun shot injuries on their persons, Subsequently both of them ,expired in Diamond Harbour Hospital.
The petitioner made a representation against the order of detention on 29th January, 1974 but it was companysidered and rejected by the State Government on 31st January, 1974.
The State Government accordingly passed an order dated 14th March, 1974 companyfirming the detention of the petitioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Govinda Mukhoty, for the petitioner.
The prejudicial act of the detenu may in a given case of such a character as to suggest that it is a part of an organised operation of a companyplex of agencies companylaborating to clandestinely and secretly carry on such activities and in such a case the detaining authority may reasonably feel satisfied that the prejudicial act of the detenu which has companye to light cannot be a solitary or isolated act, but must be part of a companyrse of companyduct of such or similar activities clandestinely or secretly carried on by the detenu and it is, therefore, necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from indulging in such activities in the future.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. The District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, by an order dated 29th December, 1973 made under sub section 1 read with subsection 2 of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directed that the petitioner be detained as be was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner pre judicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him.
K. Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
The grounds of detention referred only to the incident as forming the basis of arriving at the subjective satisfaction ,,as regards the necessity for detention of the petitioner and that incident was in the following terms On the night of 25/26 6 73 at about 00.1 hrs.
Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
379 of 1974.
Here in the present case, the, act alleged against the petitioner was a daring act of dacoity in a village by a gang companysisting of the petitioner and his associates and if this act is judged in its companyrect setting, grave proportions and clear implications, it would be clear that it cannot be a stray isolated act but must be the work of a habituated and hardened criminal given to companymit dacoities and the District Magistrate companyld, therefore, reasonably arrive at a satisfaction that with a view to preventing the petitioner from carrying on such activities it was necessary to detain him.
You also brutally assulated some of the inmates of the house of occurrence.
Pursuant to the order of detention, ,the petitioner was arrested on 18th January, 1974 and immediately ,on his arrest he was served with the grounds on which the order of detention was made.
The fact of the making of the order of detention was reported by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 2nd January, 1974 and the State Government, by an order dated 8th January, 1974, approved the order of detention.
