LAWS(SC)-1972-1-52

JNANENDRA NATH ROY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Decided On January 24, 1972
JNANENDRA NATH ROY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is for a writ of habeas corpus and is directed against an order of detention passed against the petitioner on April 16, 1971 by the District Magistrate, Burdwan, under Sec. 3 (1) read with sub-s. (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act President's Act 19 of 1970. The order recites that it was passed on the District Magistrate being satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order , one of the two grounds provided by the Act for exercise of the power of detention thereunder.

(2.) In consequence of the said order, the petitioner was placed under arrest on April 21, 1971 and detained in jail. As required by the Act, he was served with the grounds of detention on that very day. The District Magistrate reported the case to the State Government on April 16, 1971 and the State Government thereafter on April 26, 1971 approved the said order. On that day, the petitioner's detention to the Central Government. On May 19, 1971, the State Government received a representation from the petitioner against his said detention. On May 20, 1971, it referred the petitioner's case together with the said representation to the Advisory Board constituted under Sec. 9 of the Act. On June 16, 1971, the State Government considered the said representation and rejected it. On June 28, 1971, the Advisory Board, after considering the petitioner's case, made its report to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for this detention. Thereupon, the State Government on September 6, 1971 confirmed the detention order and the continuation of the petitioner's detention. The petitioner was informed of the Government's said decision on September 17, 1971.

(3.) The grounds for detention furnished to the petitioner recited four activities in respect of which the District Magistrate was said to have been satisfied for passing the impugned order. These were: