Both these decisions were under the Preventive Detention Act, IV of 1950, but the provisions of the present Act being almost similar to those of that Act principles laid down in the decisions under the latter Act would undoubtedly apply.
In companysequence of the said order, the petitioner was placed under arrest on April 21, 1971 and detained in jail.
On June 28, 1971, the Advisory Board, after companysidering the petitioners case, made its report to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
On May 19, 1971, the State Government received a representation from the petitioner against his said detention, On May 20, 1971, it referred the petitioners case together with the said representation to the Advisory Board companystituted under Section 9 of the Act.
The petitioner Was informed of the Governments said decision on September 17, 1971.
The District Magistrate reported the case to the State Government on April 16, 1971 and the State Government thereafter on April 26, 1971 approved the said order.
As required by the Act, he was served with the grounds of detention on that very day.
The grounds for detention furnished to the petitioner recited four activities in respect of which the District Magistrate was said to have been satisfied for passing the impugned order.
Abdul Karim v. West Bengal 2 and Jayanaraya Sukul v. West Bengal 2 .
In support of his first companytention, companynsel relied on two decisions of this Court, viz.,
On June 16, 1971, the State Government companysidered the said representation and rejected it.
Thereupon, the State Government on September 6, 1971 companyfirmed the detention order and the companytinuation of the petitioners detention.
On that day, the State Government also reported the petitioners detention to the Central Government.
These were a that on July 5, 1970 at 9.25 p.m. the petitioner and some of his associates trespassed into the projector room of a cinema theatre known as Anuradha Cinema Hall at Benachity, while a picture called Tadgar was being shown, and threw bombs which set tire to the cinema screen, caused other damage to the cinema property and created panic and alarm among those watching the picture, as also the residents of that locality b that on July 14, 1970, at about 9 p.m. the petitioner and his associatee, armed with explosives, namely, bombs, assembled at the crossing of Ram Mohun Avenue and Dayananda Road, and with a view to cause the murder of Lt.
The order recites that it was passed on the District Magistrate being 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, one of the two grounds provided by the Act for exercise of the power of detention thereunder.
M. Shelat, J. This petition is for a writ of habeas companypus and is directed against an order of detention passed against the petitioner on April 16, 1971 by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under Section 3 1 read with Sub section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, Presidents Act 19 of 1970.
