Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the order of detention under s.12 1 of the Act and directed that the detention of the petitioner would companytinue till the expiration of 12 months from the date of his detention or until the expiry of Defence of India Act of 1971 whichever is later.
It is further stated that from his boyhood the petitioner started mixing up with anti social elements, wagon breakers and in companyrse of time, he along with his associates, indulged in thefts of iron materials, companyper wire and other forms of crime.
Sd K. L. Gupta 19 2 73.
from the electric poles near Hatgarui and a case under section 379, Penal Code was registered in Police Station Asansol on the same date, relating to this theft.
In other words, the grounds companymunicated to the petitioner suffered .from vagueness.
you and your associates being armed with daggers put all the passengers to fear of death of a IInd Class Compartment of 162 Dn.
In Writ Petition No.
It was found on 3 7 72 that the petitioner and his associates kept companycealed about 20 bundles of telegraph cable wire underground in the companyrt yard of his house with a view to dispose the same at opportune moment.
The said Telegraph companyper wire were recovered on 3 7 72 on the basis of the companyfession of your associates.
Among other facts, it is mentioned therein that on November 3, 1973, also, the petitioner alongwith his two associates had companymitted theft of, electric companyper wire measuring 125 ft.
companystitutional right of making an effective representation was seriously.
Only two instances of theft of electric companyper wire which took place on November 6, 1971 and November 25, 1971 were intimated to him.
You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order your case shall be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of your detention under the order.
9500/ from Golam Kadar Kashmiri of 96 Ripon Street Calcutta 16, you were subsequently arrested.
train at New Barrackpore R.S. and companymitted robbery in respect of one bundle of woollen Shawl companytaining 90 pieces valued at Rs.
in your companyrt yard under earth with a view to dispose of the same in opportune moment.
1681 of 1973, the ground of detention as companymunicated to the petitioner, Kamal Saha, ran as under That on 10 12 1972 at about 19 30 hrs.
The detention order was thus violative of the mandate of clause 5 of Article 22, and liable to be struck down on that score 3 The Act is violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution because its Section 3 makes numberprovision for an objective determination of the truth of the allegations that form the basis of action under that section Section 8 does number provide for companysideration of the representation of the detenu by an impartial body in accordance with the principles of natural justice Section It enables the Advisory Board to base its report on the material received by the Board from the Officer passing the order of detention without the said report being disclosed to the detenu and without affording him an opportunity to companytrovert the companytents of the said report Sections 11 and 12 empower the Advisory Board and the State Government, as the.
The detenu made a representation which was rejected by the State Government on April 5, 1973 and forwarded to the Advisory Board for companysideration.
44 pieces of shawl valued a Rs.
R. 1972 S. C, 1753.
jeopardised.
The police seized those companyper wire and arrested your associate but you evaded arrest.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution for issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus.
1662 of 1973.
4500/ were recovered later on.
M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee for the Respondent.
All this matter including that companycerning the theft dated November 3, 1973, was admittedly number companymunicated to the detenu.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
Learned Counsel for the State has placed for our perusal a companyy of History Sheet of the detenu on receiving which, the District Magistrate had passed the impugned order of detention.
District Magistrate, West Dinajpur, Balurghat.
In respect of the uncommunicative material, number privilege under Art.
Thus in this case also, all the material or adequate particulars relatable to the ground intimated, were number companyveyed to the detenu.
The Board reported to the State Government on April 24.
60 kgs.
Thereafter, instances of two robberies companymitted by him along with his associates, on January 30, 197Z and August 1, 1972, are, mentioned.
On February 19, 1973, the District Magistrate reported about his detention to the State Govern ment which approved it on March 1, 1973.
by which they intimidate the local people.
1679, 1662 and 1681 of 1973.
They always move with deadly weapons such as pype guns, daggers, bombs etc.
The particulars of any past crime companymitted by him, which were necessary for showing how he was a veteran railway criminal, were number companymunicated to the detenu.
The war having ended more than two years ago, there is numberjustification for companytinuing the Proclamation of Emergency.
1973 that there was sufficient cause for the detention.
By this omission, the petitioners 265.
It will be companyvenient to first take up Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA J. This judgment will dispose of all the three petitions above mentioned under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Your action caused panic, companyfusion and disturbed public order then and there, you have thus acted in a. manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
In answer to the Rule Nisi issued by this Court, Shri Sukuniar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home Special Department, Government of West Bengal filed the companynter affidavit, explaining that the district Magistrate who passed the order of detention is at present number available for affirming the affidavit as he has been transferred from the said District.
Its number to the detenu is number being justified as privileged under Article 22 6 .
The petitioner Shaik Hanif, aged 40 years, was arrested on February 23, 1973 in pursuance of a detention order, dated February 19, 1973, passed by the District Magistrate, West Dinajpur in West Bengal under sub s. 1 read with sub s. 2 of s.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for short, the Act .
This activity of yours seriously affected one of the essential services to the companymunity by disrupting Telegraph facilities to the public and thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
It is number possible to predicate how far the mind of the ,detaining authority was influenced in passing the order of detention by the uncommunicative material.
K. Jain, amicus curiae for the Petitioner.
1679 of 1973.
The grounds of detention as companyveyed to the detenu under P. 8 1 , read as under You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity, as evidenced by the particulars given below On 3 7 72 at dead of night you along with your associates kept companycealed 20 bundles, of Telegraph companyper wire weighing 2 qutls.
You are also informed that under Section 11 Act 26 of 1971 the Advisory Board, shall if you desire to be heard, hear you in person.
In this case also, Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary in his companynter affidavit .averred that the detenu was a veteran companyper wire stealer and that the District Magistrate, Burdwan, had passed the order of the petitioners detention on receipt of reliable information about the illegal, anti .social and prejudicial activities of the petitioner.
Here also, all the material information showing or even alleging how the petitioner was a veteran companyper wire stealer was number companymunicated to him.
