38 Surjit Singh .
He was supplied with the grounds and he made a representation.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention order.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the order of detention on September 19, 1968.
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which on companysidering the same with other material reported that there was sufficient cause for the detention.
He was supplied the grounds on which he made a representation to the Advisory Board which heard him personally and after companysidering all the material an opinion was expressed that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
This petitioner was detained by an order dated August 2, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The Board after hearing him personally and companysidering all the materials before it, expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Yunus Ali .
The instances which were given are seven out of which it is necessary to mention only the following which are typical That on 14 11 66 at 21 15 hrs.,
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The grounds were supplies to him and he made a representation which was companysidered by the Advisory Board which, after giving a personal hearing expressed an opinion that this detention was justified.
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board along with the other materials and the Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation which was companysidered by the Advisory Board.
The petitioner was detained by the order, dated March 8, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, Howrah, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessarily with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
RPF head Rakshak K. C. Chandra of Santragachi Crime Branch objected to such indecent behaviour towards women by you all when Shri Chandra was physically assaulted with slaps by you and was threatened with dire companysequences by you and your associates.
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
One of the grounds, namely, I ii is That on 13 3 67, you with your associate Debu Biswas assaulted one Paresh Nath Koley of Ghosepara with fists and blows.
18/ from Abdul Jabbar and Rs.
37 Indrajit Debnath .
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which, after companysidering all the materials, reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
His case is similar to that of many others inasmuch as most of the grounds are number relevant to the maintenance of public order.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the original order of detention on July 29, 1968.
30 Abdul Mian Mirza .
The detention of this petitioner cannot be sustained because of the existence of the above ground which is so vague that the petitioner companyld number possibly have made any representation with regard to it.
29 Naba Kumar Ghosh .
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated January 16, 1968, on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The grounds of detention disclose the same infirmities which are to be found in the case of petitioner No.
The representation made by the petitioner was forward to the Advisory Board which companysidered all the material before it and was of the opinion that sufficient cause for his detention existed.
Petitioner No.
Petitioner No.
Consequently he is entitled to be released.
On July 10, 1968, the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention order.
Ground No.
The Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the order of detention on September 12, 1968.
I ii is That on 1 3 68 at about 02.00 hrs.,
Petitioner No.
Most of the grounds do number appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order.
Some of the grounds cannot possibly be regarded as relevant maintenance of public order.
After hearing him personally and companysidering all the materials, the Advisory Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
On receiving the grounds of detention the petitioner made a representation which was companysidered by the Advisory Board together with the other materials.
1 i is That on 11 10 67 at about 11 45 hrs.
you along with your two associate being armed with daggers, snatched away a wrist watch worth Rs.
Petitioner No.
This petitioner was detained by an order dated April 25, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3 2 of the act on the grounds that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the order of detention only July 3, 1968.
19 Ratanlal Kairi .
Some of the grounds have absolutely numberrelevance to the maintenance of public order.
On June 12, 1968, the Government companyfirmed the detention order.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The Government companyfirmed the original order of detention on August 8, 1968.
70/ and 20 packets of cigarettes from Dulal Chandra Kundu.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated July 30, 1968.
The Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention order on August 21, 1968.
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The Government thereupon companyfirmed the order of detention on September 19, 1968.
On July 29, 1968, the Government companyfirmed the order of detention.
18 Goddu Ghose .
This case falls very much in the same group as that of the petitioners Nos.
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
He made a representation to the Advisory Board which after companysidering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the detention order on August 29, 1968.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the order of detention on August 1, 1968.
The grounds suffer from the same infirmity as in the cases of Petitioners Nos.
Petitioner No.
Consequently the detention order, dated July 30, 1968, was companyfirmed on September 20, 1968, by the Government of West Bengal.
According to one of the grounds the petitioner had, on October 12, 1967 along with his associates companymitted a daring burglary in Howrah Tobacco Store by breaking open 6/7 padlocks and removed cigarette cases worth Rs.
14 Gopal Show .
7, 10 and 12 above mentioned.
On receiving the grounds of his detention, he made a representation to the Advisory Board which, after companysidering the same and giving him a personal hearing, reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
you being drunk demanded Rs.
On October 7, 1968, the detention order was companyfirmed.
We have seen the grounds of detention and they appear to relate mostly to removal of rice bags in a clandestine manner.
1 c which is in these terms That on 6 10 67 at about 06.30 hrs.
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate, Howrah, dated March 7, 1968 on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated April 19, 1968 his detention being companysidered necessary in order to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation to the Advisory Board which, after hearing the petitioner and companysidering his representation, expressed its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Petitioner No.
you and your associate Ram Nehore Kouri were seen to companyceal your presence by the side of a wagon standing at Chitpur yard with a view to companymit theft from standing wagons.
The Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the order of detention on June 10, 1968.
The grounds disclose the same infirmity as in other cases, e.g. Petitioner Nos.
An examination of the grounds shows that they relate mostly and are relevant to the head maintenance of supplies and service essential to the companymunity.
Petitioner No.
The Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention order on July 17, 1968.
1 a is typical and may be reproduced That on 10 2 67 at about 21 50 hrs.
26 Abdul Bari Karikar .
40 Sona Karmakar .
By way of example ground No.
1 a is That on 24 2 67 at about 21 26 hrs you and your associate abused C.I.B. Head Rakshak 3646 Hara Kumar Mukherjee of Shalimar and also threatened him with dire companysequences at Andul Rly.
1 ii is reproduced That on 30 9 67 at about 21.00 hrs.
His detention was directed under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
his detention was companyfirmed by the Government of West Bengal by an order, dated July 17, 1968.
We have perused the grounds for the petitioners detention.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated July 13, 1968 made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which companysidered it along with the other materials, but made a report against him.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention order.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which expressed an opinion in favour of his detention.
36 Sri Panchanan Das .
Thereupon the government companyfirmed the detention order on June 29, 1968.
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Most of the grounds are number relevant to the maintenance of public order.
The detention order was companysequently companyfirmed by the Government of West Bengal on July 2, 1968.
7 and 10.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the order of detention on May 1, 1968.
His case is similar to others inasmuch as most of the grounds are number relevant to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
You were arrested with property red handed.
That on 18 3 68 at 19 30 hrs, you with your associates closely followed Smt.
Most of the grounds companytain allegations of theft of overhead traction wire.
7 Abdul Waheb .
you with your associates formed an unlawful assembly on Dum Dum Road in front of the Fire Brigade Officer and assaulted Shri Pranab Bose of P. 18, Matijheel Avenue and you snatched away a fountain pen worth Rs.
10 Dilip Chakraborty alias Konkan .
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
you assaulted Shri Narayanchandra Das of 6 A, Baikuntha Ghose Road, Calcutta 42 with fits and blows He is therefore entitled to be released.
35 Ashwini Kumar Karmakar .
Most of the grounds are number at all relevant to the maintenance of public order see for instance ground No.
Ground No.
1 i is that on March 28, 1968, the petitioner together with his associates companymitted theft of over head traction wires including companytact wire disrupting the train services in Bongaon Section for more than 7 hours.
Most of the grounds are number at all relevant to maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated July 30, 1968, passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside.
For instance ground No.
Being chased, you and your associates were arrested by the RPF staff on duty and prosecuted.
The grounds were supplied to him on which he made a representation which was sent to the Advisory Board.
The activities which have been alleged in the grounds are again of a type which cannot be relevant to public order.
On the report of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for his detention the original order was companyfirmed by the Government of West Bengal on October 7, 1968.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated April 20, 1968, of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
For instance ground No.
28 Habibullah Khan .
Petitioner No.
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board which made a representation that there was a sufficient cause for his detention.
20 Farid Ali Naskar .
The grounds of detention have been companysidered by us and we are of the opinion that they relate mainly to the question of law and order and are number relevant to public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated June 13, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Petitioner No.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Howrah, dated May 18, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act, the detention being companysidered necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
It was sent to the Advisory Board which, after hearing him and companysidering all the material places before it, expressed its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
7 Abdul Waheb and Petitioner No.
This petitioner was detained by the order made by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, on July 6, 1968, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that the detention was necessary in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Thereupon the Government companyfirmed the order of detention on October 9, 1968.
31 Nripen Chakraborty .
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated July 30, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Whenever the peace loving citizens question your bona fides and protested against your activities and whenever they offered themselves as witnesses to your activities you threatened to burn down their houses.
For instance one of the grounds, No.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the order of detention on June 28, 1968.
1 viii is in these terms That on 16 2 68, you fled away from the R.G. Kar Hospital while you were undergoing treatment under police guard.
On September 19, 1968, the detention order was companyfirmed by the Government.
His representation was referred to the Advisory Board which companysidered it along with the other material and expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
you and your associates threatened R.P.F. Head Rakshak Prakash, Chandra Mitra of CID Kharagpur at Andul Railway Station with stabbing when Shri Mitra objected to your passing of indecent remarks at a lady passenger.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which was companysidered by it.
27 Nagendra Nath Saha .
you and your associates showed ugly gesture and posture to some women vendors of vegetables in platform No.
25 Uday Chand Nemadas .
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board along with the other materials.
The District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, made an order, dated June 13, 1968, directing under Section 3 2 of the Act petitioners detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated March 23, 1968 made in exercise of the power companyferred by Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the companymunity.
Consequently the petitioner is entitled to be released.
The detention of this petitioner cannot, therefore, be upheld and is hereby set aside.
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The grounds may have been relevant to the other head but numbere of them appears to be relevant to maintenance of public order.
23 Sk.
The Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the detention on April 17, 1968.
33 Nanda Kishore Rabi Das .
Practically all the grounds do number appear to be relevant to public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, Howrah, on March 7, 1968, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
1 ii and iii .
42 Jagannath Goila .
7 and 10.
Ground No.
1 c which is That on 18 12 68 at about 11.30 hrs you and your associate were found to remove rice from a running Railway wagon by breaking seal of the wagon door at Bagmari Railway pool and overhead Chitpur Bridge.
130 from the person of Kulak Chandra Sarkar, S o late Sahadab Sarkar of Madhab Nibas Colony, P. S. Titagarh, District 24 Parganas, near Dum Dum South Home signal at the point of dagger causing bleeding injury.
Midnapur Howrah Passenger train.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated February 17, 1968, made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The detention order was companysequently companyfirmed by the Government on June 12, 1968.
1 b is That on 12 3 67 at about 06 00 hrs.,
Ground No.
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas, dated May 25, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act, the reason for his detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated March 16, 1968, passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
39 Badal Pal .
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated March 23, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Petitioner No.
Some of the grounds are wholly irrelevant to maintenance of public order.
A perusal of the grounds shows that most of the grounds are number relevant to maintenance of public order and in this companynection reference may be made to ground Nos.
3 Panchu Gopal Mondal .
7 Abdul Waheb .
6 Anil Das .
1 a is that on August 12, 1966 at about 10.00 hrs.
12 Ashoke Kumar Mukherjee .
13 Ram Kamal Dhar alias Leda .
The ground were supplied to him on which he made a representation which was companysidered by the Advisory Board by which he was also personally heard.
He was supplied the grounds and he made representation which was companysidered by the Advisory Board.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, dated the 11th July, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
1 is altogether vague and may be reproduced That you have been for a long time engaged in anti social, illegal, and High handed criminal activities and in the companyrse of such activities you have on different occasion held out threats to different persons and that you have associated yourself with anti social elements.
The Board, after giving a personal hearing and companysidering all the materials, expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention.
Station when Shri Mukherjee objected to the passing of indecent remarks at a lady passenger of 358 Dn.
Petitioner No.
34 Samiron Sarkar .
His representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas dated May 23, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board with the other materials but the Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
43 Shyamal Pal .
46 Rangalal Debnath .
Petitioner No.
6 of Uluberia Railway Station and started whistling in mouth on seeing those women.
1 iv .
Some of the grounds cannot possibly relate to maintenance of public order.
44 Suvranghshu Mitra .
Petitioner No.
They relate mostly to the question of law and order and are number relevant to public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated April 19, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act, the grounds of detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Some of the grounds of detention do number appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order.
He was detained by an order, dated May 27, 1968, of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 on the found that his detention was necessary for preventing him from action in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Petitioner No.
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal companyfirmed the order of his detention.
11 may be reproduced That on 7 10 66 you pulled the alarm chain of the train at Bongaon Ranaghat Section while you were bringing rice for sale from Ranaghat to Bongaon, without having booked them and without having any ticket.
For instance ground No.
The ground for detention in the case of this petitioner appears to be relevant to maintenance of public order.
They cannot possibly be relevant to maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act, his detention being companysidered necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
See grounds No.
3 is in these terms On 1 5 68 at about 12 35 hrs.
His representation was companysidered by the Advisory Board together with the other materials.
The grounds for detention have been perused by us.
1 b and c .
10 Dilip Kumar Chakraborty alias Konkan .
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated July 30, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
you with your associates Amal Karali, Bapu, Tripti and others force Shri Dulal Chandra Kundu, Abdul Jabbar and Gobinda Das Roy Choudhury of Barisha to go to the shop of Nilam Maity inside Sakher Bazar and you forcibly took away Rs.
Consequently the detention order is set aside.
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which, after companysidering all the materials, reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 2 of the Act on April 4, 1968, the detention being companysidered, necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
This petitioner was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas on April 4, 1968, on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order.
Petitioner No.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated July 11, 1968, made by the District Magistrate, Howrah, on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
45 Madan Mohan Mandal .
Petitioner No.
Ground No.
65/ from the pocket of Gobinda Das Roy Choudhury one wrist watch, a gold ring and cash Rs.
This petitioner was detained by an order, dated July 30, 1968, of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas made under Section 3 2 of the Act, the detention being companysidered necessary with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The Board heard him personally and made a report that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Malda, dated June 3, 1968, made under Section 3 2 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The Board gave a personal hearing and after companysidering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released.
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation which was companysidered by by Advisory Board.
