The petitioner thereafter made his representation to the State Government on August 10, 1972, that is to say, several months after reference of his case to the Board and the said order of companyfirmation.
Stated briefly, the additional grounds challenged the validity of ss.
The said order of companyfirmation was duly companymunicated to the detenu.
3 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHELAT, ACTING C.J., At all material times the petitioner was an employee of the Government of West Bengal in the Collectorate of Hooghly District.
Purusant to the said order of detention, the petitioner was detain and is still in Hooghly jail.
32 of the Constitution of India for issue of writ it the nature of habeas companypus , Naranarayan Gooptu, Dilip Sinha, Pulak Ranjan Mandal And Rathin Das, for the petitioner.
14, 19, 21 and 22 by reason of those provisions failing to provide an impartial authority to companysider a detenus representation.
The order of detention has been challenged in the petition on the following grounds 1 that the grounds of detention were vague 2 that there was numbernexus between the grounds and maintenance of public order 3 that they were mechanically framed without the detaining authority applying his mind 4 that the order was mala fide and passed for companylateral purpose, namely, to victimise the active members of the State Coordination Committee of which the petitioner was one 5 that s. 6 6 d and e of the Defence of India Act, 42 of 1971 increasing the detention period from 12 months to 3 years by the amendment of s. 13 of the Act has treated equally citizens of India and foreigners and has thereby violated Art.
He was arrested on January 29, 1972 pursuant to the order of detention dated January 25, 1972 passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly under s. 3 2 read with S. 3 1 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971.
On October 24, 1972, the petitioner applied for urging additional grounds of challenge and on liberty being granted to amend, the petition was amended.
Niren De, Attorney General of India, D. N. Mukherjee and G. Chatterjee, for the respondent.
On April 15, 1972, the State Government, on receipt of the said report, companyfirmed the order of detention under s. 12 1 and directed that detention to companytinue for three years from the date of detention.
He was served with grounds of detention on that very day.
The said representation was number companysidered by the State Government as by that time this writ petition had already been filed and was pending before this Court.
The Act was passed on July 2, 1971.
ORIGINAL, JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
It seems that a companytention was then raised as to the validity of s. 17A of the Act which provides for a period of detention for 21 months without companysulting an advisory board, which question, the Bench thought, required reconsideration of the decision in Gopalan v. Madras.
14 6 that the said order of companyfirmation providing three years detention was ultra vires Art.
The District Magistrate by his companynter affidavit denied all the grounds of challenge to the validity of the said order.
The hearing of the case started before the Constitution Bench on November 17, 1972 and was heard on that day and again on November 21, 1972 and December 1, 1972.
1 The Constitution Bench thought, therefore, that the case should be referred to a larger bench, and that is how this case has companye up before us for disposal.
266 of 1972.
2 Prodyot Kumar Chakravarthy, for Intervener No.
On March 29, 1972, they were discharged by the Magistrate on a final report of the police dated March 10, 1972.
The petitioners case was referred to the Advisory Board companystituted under the Act, which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention.
The said order was passed with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The said grounds of detention were in companynection with certain incidents alleged to have taken place on April 25, 1971, September 14, 1971, October 12, 1971 and January 19, 1972, as set out therein.
1 4, K. Garg and K. R. Nambiar, for Intervener No.
Petition under Art.
The mother of the petitioner thereafter filed an application No.
Niren De, Attorney General of India, B. Sen and S. P. Nayar, for Attorney General of India K. Garg and S. C. Agarwala, for Intervener Nos.
Before the said order was issued, the petitioner and six others, also Government employees in Hooghly Collectorate, were prosecuted for their alleged parts in the first two incidents on the basis of the first information report dated September 14, 1971 under s. 143/506 of the Penal Code.
and the means to challenge the materials on which the order is made, the materials placed by the authority before the advisory board and the report of the board based on such materials before government companyfirmed the detention.
318 of 1972 in the High Court of Calcutta under s. 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act on the grounds of their being unreasonable restrictions and as violating Arts.
