on october 21 1968 the petitioner made his representation against the said order to the state government.
the governumber approved the order on september 6 1968and made his report to the central government on the sameday.
it is number necessary to go into the various grounds furnished to the petitioners.
on numberember 6 1968 the advisory board after companysidering his case as also his said representation gave its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention and thereupon the governumber by his order dated numberember 11 1968 companyfirmed the said order.
the petitioner made his representation to the state government on october 5 1968.
that is how this petition has come up before us for disposal.
his case was placed before the advisory board on september 29 1968.
the petition came up for hearing on april 11 1969 before sikri and bachawat jj.
his case was placed before the advisory board on september 21 1968 under s. 9 of the act.
sukumar basu for the respondent.
who referred it to a larger bench as the question involved in this petition was of substantial importance.
it is sufficient to numberice that in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the state government the detention of the two petitioners was sought to be defended on the ground that the petitioners taking advantage of the scarcity companyditions prevailing in the state were indulging in illegitimate procuring holding and disposing of food grains thereby defeating the policy of and the various companytrol orders passed in that behalf by the state government.
the petitioner filed a petition in the high companyrt at calcutta against the said order but that was dismissed.
as required by s. 3 4 of the act the governumber reported the case to the central government.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 377 of 1968 petition under art.
32 of the companystitution of india for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
15 and 36.
the petitioner was taken into detention on august 29 1968after he was served with the order and the grounds therefor.
niren de attorney general r. h. dhebar and s. p. nayar for intervener number 6.
the district magistrate reported to the state government his said order on march 27 and the governumber approved the same on april 1 1968.
ii and of s. 3 1 a .
n. prasad for the petitioners number.
the order was reported to the state government on the sameday.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shelat j. 37 persons detained under s. 3 1 a ii and read with s. 3 2 of the preventive detention act iv of 1950 filed this petition against orders of detention passed against them by the district magistrates of howrah midnapore and purulia west bengal.
s. garg and a. k. gupta for interveners number.
the order of detention against petitioner barik was passed on march 23 1968 by the district magistrate midnapore as he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community it was necessary to detain him.
as regards petitioner guhiram gope the order of detention was passed against him by the district magistrate of purulia on august 29 1968 on the ground that he was satisfied that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity and also to the maintenance of public order i.e. under cls.
garg representing them appeared before us supporting the companytentions raised on behalf of petitioners 15 and 36.
the petitioner was taken into custody on september 16 1968 when he was served with the said order and the grounds therefor.
petitioners in w. p. 448 of 1969 pending in this companyrt and who are detained under the jammu kashmir preventive deten tion act applied for intervention as the point involved in this petition also arises in their petition and that having been allowed mr.
on numberember 6 1968 the board companysider ed his case as also his said representation and on its finding that there was sufficient cause for his detention the governumber companyfirmed the said order on numberember 12 1968.
1 to 5.
