SASTHI CHANDRA ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution is directed against the order of detention, dated May 7, 1971. Passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri under sub-section (1) read with sub-sec. (3) of section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, being President's Act XIX of 1970. The impugned order recited that the District Magistrate was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was arrested on May 9, 1971. The said order was thereafter approved by the West Bengal Government under sec. 3 (4) on May 17, 1971. As provided by the Act, the State Government placed the petitioner's case together with all the relevant materials before the Advisory Board on June 7 1971. On June 8, 1971, the Government received the petitioner's representation against his said detention. On July 1, 1971. The Government rejected it being satisfied that the order was valid and proper. On July 1, 1971, the Government forwarded the said representation to the Advisory Board. The petitioner's case in the said representation was that the grounds of detention furnished to him at the time of his arrest were false and were invented for the sole purpose of detaining him without a trial. He also alleged there that in the first information report sent by the Head Master of Maynaguri High School, on the basis of which a police case was started against him and certain other persons, there was no mention of his or any other name. The said first information report did not also contain any allegation that he and those others with him had under threats prevented the staff of the said school from offering any resistance to him and his companions. He also forwarded with the said representation a certificate of good conduct dated May 17, 1971 issued by the Head Master of the said school. The Advisory Board gave a personal hearing to the petitioner but after hearing him and considering the said representation together with the other materials placed before it, submitted its report, according to which there was sufficient cause justifying the issuance of the said order and the petitioner's detention thereunder. Upon receipt of the said report, the Government confirmed by its order dated July 29, 1971, the said order of detention and the continuation of the petitioner's detention thereunder. That order was communicated to the petitioner on July 30, 1971.

(2.) The grounds of detention served upon the petitioner were two. The first was that on December 1, 1970, sometime after mid-night, the petitioner along with certain other persons after breaking open the doors entered into the room of the Head Master of the Maynaguri Higher Secondary School and set fire to books, registers, a type-writer, furniture etc. causing heavy damage to the school, and placed thereafter a bomb in the school premises thereby endangering the lives of the teaching staff and the students. The second was that on April 16, 1971 at about 11 hours the petitioner together with certain other persons once again made a forcible entry into the said school, preventing under threats the members of the school staff from offering any resistance to him and his companions and then set fire to the school building. The result of the aforesaid acts was that the school had to be closed down for an indefinite period.

(3.) It appears that in connection with the incident set out in the second ground, the Head Master of the said school had lodged the first said information report that very night, setting out therein the fact of the school having been set fire to by some miscreants, as also the fact that he and the other members of the staff had been able to extinguish the fire and thereby save the school building. The said report recited that the school had been reopened that very day after the vacation but had to be closed for an indefinite period owing to the aforesaid incident. It further stated, presumably with reference to the earlier incident of December 1, 1970 set out in the first ground of detention, that repeated acts of arson to the school building had alarmed him and the other teachers and that they apprehended recurrence of such incidents and total destruction of the school building and requested stationing of an armed guard at the school to prevent such incidents.