As regards the second ground that the detaining authority should himself make the affidavit in reply the affidavit filed by the Deputy Secretary offers a satisfactory explanation as to why the District Magistrate companyld number himself make the affidavit.
The Board gave its decision on June 28 and the order of detention was companyfirmed by the Government on July 30.
The order is based on the allegation that on April 22, 1973 the petitioner, along with his associates, had cut the over head return companyductor wire in between two railway stations on the Sealdah Diamond Harbour Section of the Eastern Railway and had companymitted theft of the wire causing companyplete dislocation of train services in the particular section.
The petitioners representation was received by the State Government on May 29, it was companysidered on June 1 and on the very next day the matter was placed before the Advisory Board.
On the same day that the order was passed, the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order and the grounds were served on him.
The order of detention was passed under Section 3 1 a iii of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
The detention was reported to the State Government on May 9, it was approved by the State Government on May 14 and on the same day a report in behalf of the petitioners detention was submitted to the Central Government.
Chandrachud, J. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention dated May 5, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas.
