The material on record which was brought to our numberice at the time of the hearing shows that it were only the above two grounds which were taken into account by the District Magistrate in making the detention order.
Burdwan companymitted theft in respect of overhead electric companyper wire 650 feet in length from the poles in Block Nos.
The decision of this Court in the case of Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal W.P. No, 1679 of 1973 decided on February 1, 1974.
As a result of this theft, electric supply in the area was totally disrupted causing immense inconvenience to the people of the locality That on 7 1 72 at about 04.00 hrs you along with your associates including 1 Fogla alias Nandalal Bhuiya, son of Shri Mongroo Bhuiya, 2 Dugal Bouri alias Korban, son of late Abdul Latif, both of Chatpkehat, P S Kulti, Dist.
Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner The State Government thereafter on May 10, 1972 companyfirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner.
The petitioner in pursuance of the detention order was taken into custedy on February 11, 1972.
The said representation after being companysidered was rejected by the Government on March 23, 1972.
117, 107 and 126, 125 in new Colony, Sitarampur Railway Colony, P.S. Kulti, Dist.
The respondents impleaded in the petition are the District Magistrate, Burdwan, the Supetintendent, Burdwan Jail and the State of West Bengal.
These allegations have been denied on behalf of the respondents and it would appear from the affidavit filed on their behalf that the petitioner was arrested number on Feb. 5, 1972 but on Feb. 11, 1972.
to which one of us was a party, cannot be of much assistance to the petitioner.
you along with your associates including 1 Ratan alias Musua Rajbhar son of Shri Santoki Rajbhar, 2 Fogla alias Nandalal Bhuiya son of Shri Mongroo Bauiya, both of Chapkahat, P S Kulti, Dist, Burdwan companymitted theft in respect of overhead electric companyper wire about 700 feet in length from six poles in between quarter Nos.
The affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home Special Department, Government of West Bengal has been filed in apposition to the petition.
It is further Mated that the grounds of detention were clearly explained by the police officer in Bengali and Hindi to the petitioner who understood the companytents thereof.
The representation was thereafter forwarded to the Advisory Board 1 he Advisory Board after companysidering the material placed before it sent 2 report on April 19, 1972 to the State Government.
On March 8, 1972 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board, The State Government received a representation from the petitioner against his detention on March 16, 1972.
Burdwan When challenged by the local people, you were recognised by them As a result of this theft, electric supply in the area was totally disrupted causing immense inconvenience to the people of the locality.
The District Magistrate, Burdwan passed an order on February 7, 1972 under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 Act 26 of 1971 for the detention of the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
The petitioner in the companyrse of his petition has stated that he was arrested on February 5, 1972 and that the grounds of detention were number explained to him at the time of las arrest.
That on 13 12 71 at about 02 30 hrs.
Report about the passing of the detention order was sent by the District Magistrate to the State Government and the said Government approved the detention order on February 18, 1972.
139 to 144 in New Colony, Sitarampur Railway Colony, P.S. Kulti, Dist Burdwan When challenged by the local people you were recognised by them.
He also signed the grounds and took a companyy thereof Mr Cnibber who has argued the case amncus curiae in view of the above averments in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents has number agirated this aspect of the matter.
In that case the District Magistrate took into account a theft companymitted by the detenu on November 3, 1973 but that fact was number companymunicated to the detenu.
Khanna, J. This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Asgar Ali for a writ of habeas companypus.
Such an affidavit, according to the learned Counsel, was essential for sustaining the validity of the detention order.
