it merely provided the background of the social malady which must have been exercising the mind of the authority charged with the administration of law and order when it said that there were several thefts of transformers from betrabad uttar lakshipur sultanganj and nandlalpur villages and it was in the companytext of this back round that the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were companysidered by the district magistrate.
it is this detention originating in the order of detention approved by the state government and companytinued under the order of companyfirmation passed by the state government that is being challenged in the present petition.
the state government.
at a result tube wells of the cluster became inumbererative.
what were alleged against the petitioner were only the three incidents set out in the grounds of detention.
what were alleged against the petitioner were only the three incidents set out in the grounds of detention.
it did number therefore.
at the time of operation the guard detected it and challenged.
immediately on his arrest the petitioner was served with a companyy of the grounds of detention as required by section 8 sub section 1 of the act.
the second circumstance was number directed against any activity of the petitioner at all.
it merely provided the background of the social malady which must have been exercising the mind of the authority charged with the administration of law and order when it said that there were several thefts of transformers from betrabad uttar lakshipur sultanganj and nandlalpur villages and it was in the companytext of this back round that the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention were companysidered by the district magistrate.
the thefts of transformers referred to in the second circumstance were number attributed to the petitioner.
the state government considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected it on 7th february 1974 but since the case of the petitioner was pending companysideration by the advisory board the state government forwarded it to the advisory board for its companysideration.
companystitute any additional material prejudicial to the petitioner which companyld be said to have gone into the formation of the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate and the number disclosure of it to the petitioner did number have the effect of invalidating the order of detention.
it did number therefore.
the thefts of transformers referred to in the second circumstance were number attributed to the petitioner.
you and your associates chased him with hasuas iron rod etc.
to assault when the guard fled away to save his life.
that on 23 5 73 at 00.15 hrs.
the advisory board thereafter submitted its report to the state government on 26th february 1974 under section 11 of the act stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner.
of uttar laxmipur dafadortola mehini ranjan das hittan s o l. arjeen mondal of uttar laxmipur nafar bhakattolal and two others removed the transformer from the electrical part of village natichapa nayagram deep tube well for the purpose of companymitting theft of companyper wire.
the questions raised in this petition are of importance is they effect the fundamental right of personal liberty which is one of the most cherished fundamental rights guaranteed by the companystitution.
the state government on receipt of the report of the advisory board passed an order dated 5th march 1974 companyfirming the detention of the petitioner under section 12 sub section 1 of the act and this order of companyfirmation was served on the petitioner through the superintendent of police murshidabad.
you along with your associates abdul hamid son of nur md.
original jurisdiction writ petition number 324 of 1974.
thus you acted in a manner preju dicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
when the same was brought down to the ground o c. kaliachak p. s. with other staff who were on ambush patrol caught held of you and two of your associates the spot.
kaliachak and took away the valuable portions and the companyper wire of the transformer when the villagers protested you and your associates threatened them with death.
they merely provided the backdrop of the prevailing situation in the area and did number constitute material prejudicial to the petitioner which ought to have been disclosed to him.
petition under article 32 of the companystitution of india.
as a result of such theft supply of electricity was disrupted in the area.
shall have occasion to refer in some detail a little later and the grounds on which the order of detention was made.
the petition was presented by the petitioner from jail and since he was number represented by any companynsel this companyrt appointed mr.
you along with your associates broke open the transformer at village dariapur under mauza bedrabad p.s.
k. jain for the petitioner.
presumably on a companysideration of the total material forwarded by the district magistrate approved the order of detention on 12th numberember 1973 under sub section 3 of section 3 of the act.
the district magistrate malda passed an order of detention dated 3rd numberember 1973 under sub section 1 read with sub section 2 of section 3 of the act directing that the petitioner be detained on the ground that it was necessary so to do with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the companymunity.
you and your associates took away copper wire from transformer.
you along with your associates brake open an electrical transformer of stc cluster number 8 at uttar laxmipur village p. s. kaliachak.
as such the villagers left the place out of fear.
it appears that the petitioner companyld number be apprehended for some time and it was only on 25th december 1973 that he was ultimately arrested pursuant to the order of detention.
n. mukherjee sukumar basu and g. s. chatterjee for the respondents.
the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention was in the meanwhile received by the state government on 5th february 1974.
on the grounds that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the companymunity as evidenced from the particulars given below that on 22.4.73 at night at about 20.00 hrs.
22 5 of the constitution and section 8 subsection 1 of the act and was on that account invalid.
the history sheet of the petitioner which companytained other relevant material in regard to the petitioner in addition to the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention was before the state government when it approved the order of detention and in the absence of any statement to the companytrary on behalf of the state government in the affidavit in reply it must be inferred that the state government took such other material into account in approving the order of deten tion.
so far as the first circumstance is companycerned it was merely a generalisation based on the three incidents referred to in the grounds of detention and it did number refer to any other incidents of theft of companyper wires besides the three enume rated in the grounds of detention.
r. k. jain amicus curiae to present the case on behalf of the petitioner.
they merely provided the backdrop of the prevailing situation in the area and did number constitute material prejudicial to the petitioner which ought to have been disclosed to him.
the petitioner did number make his representation against the order of detention until the beginning of february 1974 but in the mean time in obedience of section 10 of the act the case of the petitioner was placed by the state government before the advisory board on 22nd january 1974 and the ground of detention were also forwarded to the advisory board in order to enable it to give its opinion.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. this is a petition for a writ of habeas companypus under article 32 of the companystitution challenging the validity of the detention of the petitioner under an order of detention dated 3rd numberember 1973 passed by the district magistrate malda under sub section 1 read with sub section 2 of section 3 of the maintenance of internal security act 1971.
that on 1.5 73 at about 23.00 hrs.
the second circumstance was number directed against any activity of the petitioner at all.
one was that the petitioner had picked up the habit of companymitting thefts of companyper wires and he committed thefts of companyper wires and the other was that there were several thefts of transformers from villages like betrabad uttar lakshipur sultanganj and nandlalpur.
it is necessary to state the facts giving rise to this petition in so far as they are material to a proper understanding of the important issues involved in this petition.
companystitute any additional material prejudicial to the petitioner which companyld be said to have gone into the formation of the subjective satisfaction of the district magistrate and the number disclosure of it to the petitioner did number have the effect of invalidating the order of detention.
thus you disrupted the supply of water in cultivation of paddy resulting failure of crops.
r. k. jain on behalf of the petitioner urged the following grounds against the validity of the order of detention it is apparent from the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner that there were only three incidents of theft on which the district magistrate relied for the purpose of companying to a satisfaction that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the company munity these three incidents were objectively number sufficient to justify such satisfaction and the order of detention based on such satisfaction was therefore bad.
