subhan sk.
of paddy was found in your godown but you failed to show any record or account book to justify the stock in your godown.
it is therefore number surprising that the petitioner would have made a long representation to the government against his arrest and seizure of paddy and all other allegations which were certainly knumbern to him in the companyrse of the companyrt prosecu tion.
on 28 1 73 at about 10.30 p.m. a stock of 12 qunt 15 kg.
and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 1880 of 1973.
chatterjee appearing on behalf of the state of west bengal seeks to support the order on the ground that the detenu fully understood the import of the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention and submitted a long representation to the government which was however rejected.
petition under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
k. chatterjee g. s. chatterjee and sukumar basu for the respondent.
ambur of sahapur p. s. khoyrasole and by such clandestine deal in paddy you hindered the procurement of paddy and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
h. c. mittal learned companynsel for the petitioner appearing as amicus curiae has made several submissions but it is sufficient to companyfine our decision to one principal ground namely that the grounds are so vague and uncertain that it is number reasonably possible for the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention.
to sk.
rakib and sk.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by goswami j. by this application under article 32 of the constitution for a writ of habeas companypus the petitioner challenges the validity of the order of detention passed by the district magistrate birbhum on march 21 1973 under section 3 of the maintenance of internal security act 1971 act number 26 of 1971 .
c. mittar for the petitioner.
these are as follows on 28 1 73 at about 4.30 p.m. you as a direct purchasing agent of the food corporation of india sold out 4 quintals of paddy from the stock held in the account of the f.c.i.
by such surreptitious business as a direct purchasing agent you impeded the progress of procurement of paddy by the f.c.i.
the order of detention is passed on the ground that the petitioner has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
the impugned order is specifically founded on two grounds companymunicated to the petitioner.
it is well settled that in a case of preventive detention under the act it is absolutely necessary to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu in clear and unambiguous terms giving as much particulars as will facilitate making of an effective representation in order to satisfy the detaining authority that the order is unfounded or invalid.
