On January 8, 1972, the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board under Section 10 of the Act.
26 of 1971 and the petitioner was arrested on December 11, 1971 in pursuance thereof.
The Advisory Board, after companysideration of the materials placed before it and the representation, submitted its report to the State Government on February 7, 1972.
512.00 by brandishing swords and daggers.
The Advisory Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner.
You with your associates viz.
The ground of detention stated On 19 8 1971 at 15.30 hrs.
The representation was companysidered by the State Government and by its order dated January 8, 1972, the representation was rejected but the Government forwarded the representation to the Advisory Board for companysideration.
This adversely affected even tempo of life of the people in the locality.
The order of detention together with the ground thereof was served on him on the same day.
The report was companysidered by the State Government and on December 1, 1971, the order of detention was approved by the State Government and on the same day the State Government submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Sub section 4 of Section 3 of the Act together with the grounds of detention and the other particulars.
On or about January 3, 1972, the State Government in its Home Department Special Section received a representation from the petitioner.
The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, West Bengal, on November 23, 1971, in the exercise of his powers under Sub section 1 read with Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 No.
By an order dated March 3, 1972, the State Government companyfirmed the order of detention and companymunicated that order to the petitioner by its Memo dated March 3, 1972.
By such act of yours in broad day light the people were terrorised, so much so that they closed their shops and companyld number follow their numbermal avocation of life.
On November 23, 1971, the District Magistrate reported to the State Government about the passing of the order of detention.
The act of the petitioner and his associates was calculated to cause and, in fact, caused panic in the Bazar all the neighbouring shop owners closed their shops.
Counsel for the petitioner companytended that the ground did number disclose that the petitioner indulged in any activity which was calculated or likely to cause disturbance of public order.
Narayan Pal and Subal Majhi of Burdwan town raided the shop of one Aditya Samanta of Tentultalla Bazar and companymitted there of Rs.
Mathew, J. The petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention and prays for the issue of a writ or order in the nature of habeas companypus and for releasing him form custody.
