The reason given in this companynter affidavit for the District Magistrate number making the affidavit himself does number appear to be satisfactory.
The petitioner was detained under an order dated June 23, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under power reserved to him under Sub section 1 read with Sub section 3 of Section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970.
The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner first recited that he was being detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and then set out the particulars thereof which ran as follows That on the night of 1 6 71 at about 01.30 hours, while companymitting theft of rice from Wagon No.
The companynter affidavit, however, does number set out the date when the Government rejected the said representation.
The companynter affidavit affirms the fact of the Government having received the petitioners said representation on July 9, 1971 as also the fact of the State Government having companysidered and rejected it.
The Government thereafter companyfirmed by its order of September 8, 1971 the impugned order and the petitioners detention thereunder and companymunicated that order to the petitioner on October 11, 1971.
The petition was resisted by the Government who filed a companynter affidavit of the Assistant Secretary, Home Special Department.
Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was arrested on June 28, 1971 and detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail.
The companynter affidavit also did number explain why the Government took time between the 9th and the 27th of July, 1971 in disposing of the said representation.
On August 30, 1971, the Board made its report to the effect that in its view there was sufficient cause justifying the detention.
Counsel or the respondent State, however, was good enough to produce the Government file in companynection with the petitioner.
The ground for detention thus did number mention that the acts which the petitioner was alleged there to have companymitted had affected or had any relation to the security of the State, though that expression, as aforesaid, was included in the impugned detention order.
Mr. Markandeya, appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner, raised the following companytentions in his challenge against the validity of the impugned order 1 that the District Magistrates recital in the impugned order that he was satisfied that the petitioners detention was necessary so as to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order showed the casualness with which the order was passed inasmuch as the District Magistrate merely companyied out the language of Section 3 without being certain whether his satisfaction was based on one or the other 2 that this was particularly so as the ground of detention framed by him did number even mention the expression security of the State, which fact further disclosed that the said ground had numberrelation to such security of the State 3 that one of the reasons for detention given in the impugned order being thus absent, the impugned order was bad in law, and 4 that there was delay by the Government in companysidering the representation of the petitioner, which the Government even number had number explained and that such delay according to the decisions of this Court was fatal to the validity of the companytinued detention of the petitioner.
The Government rejected the said representation and then referred the petitioners case together with the said representation to the Advisory Board.
Against the said order, the petitioner sent to the Government his representation which was received by it on July 9, 1971.
Thus, the delay, Prima facie, of 19 days has remained unexplained by reason of the companynter affidavit keeping silence about the date of rejection.
That file showed that the Government had sent the said representation to the Board on July 27, 1971 for its companysideration.
The said order stated that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order.
SE 39751 at Bengaon Railway Station Yard, you and your associates charged bombs upon the on duty R.P.F. party with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them.
The companynter affidavit thus does number throw any light as to the date when the Government disposed of the said representation, number the date when it sent it to the Board.
This fact read along with the companynter affidavit would show that the Government must have companysidered and rejected the said representation on or before July 27, 1971.
By explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality you created disturbance of public order thereby.
The date of such rejection being kept blank in the companynter affidavit, it is number possible, however, to say when exactly the Government passed its order rejecting the representation.
As a result of your bomb charge SR 3179 Himungshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R.P.F. party sustained burn injury on his person.
The Assistant Secretary was authorised, it appears, to file it as the District Magistrate who passed the impugned order was at the time number available as he had since then been appointed the Secretary of the State Electricity Board.
