The respondent disputed the validity of this companytention but realising that merely on the strength of the isolated act attributed to the petitioner in this ground, it was number possible to justify the satisfaction alleged to have been reached by the District Magistrate, the respondent urged that wagon breaking had become a menacingly frequent crime which was seriously affecting movement of essential companymodities and in the companytext of this background, the act of wagon breaking companymitted by the petitioner, though single and solitary, companyld reasonably lead to the satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from indulging in further acts of wagon breaking.
The petitioner companytended that there was only one ground companymunicated to him under Section 8 Sub section 1 as forming the basis of the order of detention and it was that on the night of 11th August, 1972 the petitioner with his associates was found removing three bales of empty jute bags after breaking a railway wagon in Naihati railway yard and when challenged by the local railway Protection Force the petitioner and his associates fled away leaving the booty.
There was only one ground set out in this companymunication and it was in the following terms.
Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 30th August, 1972 and immediately on his arrest the grounds on which the order of detention was made were served on him by a companymunication dated 28th August, 1972 made under Section 8 Sub section 1 of the Act.
This ground, said the petitioner, was a single solitary ground which companyld hardly sustain the inference that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity and with a View to preventing him from so acting it was necessary to detain him and the satisfaction of the District Magistrate in this behalf was numbersatisfaction at all and companyld number support the making of the order of detention.
you and your associates were removing three bales of empty gunny bags by breaking open wagon No.
WR 386335 near Goala Fatak North Cabin of Naihati Railway Yard.
There was also another angle from which the validity of the order of detention was challenged on behalf of the petitioner.
Being challenged by the local R.G. members you and your associates fled away leaving behind the stolen Gunny bags.
That on 11 8 72 at about 14.05 hrs.
The petitioner thereupon submitted from jail the present petition challenging the legality of his detention and praying for a writ of habeas companypus for setting him free.
The State Government thereafter placed before the Advisory Board the ground on which the order of detention was made as also the representation sent by the petitioner against the order of detention and on receipt of the report of the Advisory Board that there was in its opinion sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner the State Government passed an order dated 7th October, 1972 companyfirming the detention of the petitioner.
Bhagwati, J. The District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, in exercise of the power companyferred upon him under Sub section 1 read with Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, passed an order dated 28th August, 1972 directing that the petitioner be detained as it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
