SUBAL CHANDRA GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions challenge the order of detention made under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (herein after called "the Act"). The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 306/ 71 was detained on 30-4-71 by an order made by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, dated 27-4-71. The order of detention and the grounds were served on him on the same date. A report of having made the order was made by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 30-4-71 which was approved by it on 5-5-71 on which date the State Government also reported to the Central Government. A representation was received from the petitioner on 24-5-71 which was considered and rejected by the Government on 29-5-71 on which date the Government placed the case before the Board. The Advisory Board reported to the State Government that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for detention and the State Government confirmed the detention and extended the period of detention on 26-7-71. In Writ Petition No. 309/ 71 the detention order was made in 28-4-71 by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and on the same date the State Government was addressed about the said detention order which the State Government approved on 7-5-71. A report was also made on that date to the Central Government. The petitioner was arrested on 28-4-71 and he made a representation which was received by the State Government on 31-5-71 which representation was considered and rejected by the State Government on 17-6-71. The case was placed before the Advisory Board on 27-5-71 and the Advisory Board reported on 5-7-71 that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner to be detained. The State Government confirmed this order and extended the period of detention on 26-7-71.

(2.) It will be seen from the various steps taken by the concerned authorities and the State Government that all the mandatory provisions of the law were complied with and the confirmation and extension of detention was made within three months from the date of arrest.

(3.) The question that now remains to be considered is whether the grounds upon which each of the petitioners has been detained are irrelevant or vague. In Writ Petition No. 306/71, the two grounds upon which the petitioner has been detained are as follows: