On September 20, 1971, the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board.
26 of 1971 .
The only ground urged on behalf of the petitioner was that a representation was filed by the petitioner before the State Government but that the representation was number companysidered or disposed of by the Government.
The State Government, in the exercise of its power under Sub section 1 of Section 12 of the Act companyfirmed the order of detention on November 4, 1971, and it was companymunicated to the petitioner by its Memo dated November 6, 1971.
The State Government companysidered the report and approved it on August 25, 1971 under Section 3 3 of the Act 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 other particulars.
In para 16 of the companynter affidavit on behalf of the State Government it is specifically stated that numberrepresentation was received by the State Government.
The petitioner was arrested on August 22, 1971, in pursuance of order dated August 14, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly, West Bengal, under the provisions of Sub section 1 read with Sub section 2 of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 No.
The Advisory Board, after companysideration of the materials placed before it, submitted its report to the State Government on October 27, 1971, stating that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner.
The District Magistrate duly reported to the State Government about the passing of the order of detention on August 18, 1971.
The said order together with the ground of detention was served on him on the same day.
Mathew, J. The petitioner challenges the validity of a detention order and prays for the issue of writ or order in the nature of habeas companypus and for releasing him from custody.
