The matter is indeed companycluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Sahib Singh Dugal v. Union of India.
There were two incidents referred to in the grounds of detention as forming the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the part of the District Magistrate and they were as follows On 23.1.73 at about 03.00 hrs.
Reports were lodged with the police against the detenu in respect of the two incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention.
The investigating 1 1972 S. C. C. 666.
1 There, the grounds on which the order of detention was based referred to two incidents in which the detenu and his associates were alleged to have participated.
1 and 2 at Cross Road No.
The State Government also reported the fact of approval of the order of detention to the Central Government within seven days from the date of the order of approval.
This companytention was repelted by this Court and it was held that the above circumstance was number sufficient to lead to the inference that.
The petitioner was discharged from these cases on 6th June, 1973 and from the other case also he was discharged on 14th June, 1973.
It may be pointed out that both the decisions in Jayanarayan Sukuls case and Haraclhan Sahas case supra were decisions rendered by a Bench of five Judges.
The Magistrate companysequently discharged the petitioner and others.
Similarly, in respect of the second incident, which took place on 22nd February, 1973, a criminal case was registered with Chittaranjan Police Station on 2nd March, 1973.
On March 11, 1965, the Investigating Officer made a report to the Court to the effect that the petitioner and others involved in that criminal case might be discharged as sufficient evidence for their companyviction companyld number be discovered during the investigation.
Both these criminal cases were filed in the companyrt of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Asansole.
On 22 2 73 at about 04.00 hrs.
The order of detention was thereafter made on 10th July, 1973 but the petitioner was absconding and he companyld number, therefore, be arrested until 24th August, 1973.
Burdwan, ii Dhiran Antony, son of Michael Pitter of Purniatalao, P.S. Hirapur, Distt.
23 of Chittaranjan township, P. Chittaranian, Dist.
Burdwan and thereby clamped down darkness in the entire area causing much inconvenience and hardship to the people in general living in that area , which is prejudicial to, the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
3, Sunset avenue, Chittaranjan township, P. S. Chittaranjan, Dist.
The name of the petitioner was number mentioned in the First Information Report in either of these two cases but his participation in the two incidents was revealed in the companyrse, of investigation.
It appears that numbercharge sheet was filed in both these cases and these cases were dropped by filing F.R.T. The affidavit in reply does number state as to what was the reason for which F.R.T. was filed and these cases were dropped but taking the case of the State at its worst, we may presume that this was done as the police companyld number procure evidence to sustain the companyviction of the petitioner.
officer, after investigating the cases relating to those incidents submitted a report that numberhing companyld be had against the petitioner.
you along with your associates i Michael Antony, son of M. Danial Ram Murti of Purniatetao, P. S. Hirapur, District Burdwan ii Bhiren Antony, son of Michael Pitter of Purniateloo, P. S. Hirapur, Distt.
Burdwan, and others companymitted theft in respect of two spans of electric line, 240 feet in length from pole No.
The, State Govern ment thereafter placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board on 20th September, 1973.
On 25th September, 1973 the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention was received by the State Government and after due and proper companysideration the State Government rejected it by an order dated 29th September, 1973.
On these facts it is difficult to see how it can be companytended that the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate mala fide or in companyorable exercise of his power.
Immediately after the petitioner came out of the Jail, he was served with an order for his detention under Rule 30 1 b of the Defence of India Rules.
7 to 9 in Street No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The State Government thereafter companyfirmed the order of detention by an order dated 1st November, 1973.
the action of the detaining authority was mala fide.
The petitioner was thereafter released on bail though we do number know the precise date on which such release was effected.
1 The petitioner in that case was arrested on December 6, 1964, for offence under the Official Secrets Act.
467 of 1974.
One of the companytentions which was advanced on behalf of the petitioner in Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was that the detention order was mala fide inasmuch as it had been made after the authorities had decided to drop criminal proceedings because of inability to get sufficient evidence to secure companyviction.
S. Chatteriee, for the respondent.
The order of detention was made on 10th July, 1973 on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance Of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
32 of the Constitution of India.
Petition under Art.
you along with your associates i Michael Antony, son of M. Danial Ram Murti of Pumlatalao, P. S. Hirapur, Dist.
Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 24th August, 1973 and immediately on his arrest he was served with the grounds of detention.
detenu was, therefore, discharged in those cases.
The petitioner was arrested on 1st March, 1973 in companynection with some other case and he was shown as arrested in companynection with these two cases since they were pending against him.
The first incident took place on 23rd January, 1973 and in respect of it, a criminal case was registered with Chittaranjan Police Station on 12th February, 1973.
thefts in respect companyductors, 200 feet long from pole Nos.
The representation was then forwarded by the State Government to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board, after companysidering the D case of the petitioner and taking into account the representation received from him, made a report to the State Government on 23rd October, 1973 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
The last companytention urged by Mr. R. K. Jain on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of detention was made by the District Magistrate in companyorable exercise of power, since numbercharge sheets were filed against the petitioner in the companyrt of the magistrate in respect of the two incidents set out in the grounds of detention and the criminal cases registered with Chitaranjan Police Station were dropped by filing final Report as true, briefly described as F.R.T. To understand this companytention it is necessary to state a few facts which may be gathered from the affidavit in reply filed by the District Magistrate.
K. Jain, for the petitioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BRAGWATI, J. The petitioner in this petition seeks a writ of habeas companypus challenging the validity of his detention under an order made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan under sub section 1 read with sub section 2 of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
Burdwan and others companymitted.
Meanwhile the District Magistrate reported the fact of the making of the order of detention to the State Government and the order of detention was then approved by the State Government by an order dated 21st July, 1973.
even if it may be assumed that cases were registered against the petitioner by the police in respect of the two incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention and the, police as a result of the investigation companyld number procure evidence to sustain the companyviction of the petitioner, that fact would number be sufficient to hold that the detention order made against the petitioner was mala fide.
This argument was rejected by a Division Bench in the following words In our opinion.
