NAGENDRA NATH MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 7, 1971, the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, in exercise of power conferred upon his by S. 3 (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act 19 of 1970) passed an order under sub-sec. (1) of that section directing the detention of the Petitioner. The order recited that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it had become necessary to detain the petitioner "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". On that very day, the District Magistrate reported to the State Government that fact of his having passed the said order. In pursuance of that order, the petitioner was arrested on May 9, 1971 and was detained in Jail. The petitioner was furnished, as required by the Act, with the grounds for his detention at the time when his arrest was effected. On May 17, 1971, the State Government approved the said order. On the same day the State Government reported the fact of the passing of the said order and its approval to the Central Government. The petitioner made his representation which he was entitled to make by virtue of S. 8 (1). That was received by the State Government on May 27, 1971. On June 7, 1971, that is, within 30 days from the date of detention, the petitioner's case was placed before the Advisory Board constituted under section 9 of the Act. The State Government considered that representations but rejected it by its order dated July 1, 1971. On July 9, 1971, the Board reported that there was, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention. Thereupon, the State Government, by its order dated July 29, 1971, confirmed the detention order under S. 12.

(2.) The grounds for detention served on the petitioner stated that the order was passed in view of his acting "in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below". These particulars were :

(3.) The case of the detenu, as stated in the petition, was that he was at first arrested on suspicion on April 23, 1971 in connection with G. R. Case No. 812 of 1971, but was released on bail as there was no evidence against him. Thee was another case also being G. R. 2639 of 1970 in connection with the incident referred to in ground No. 1 set out above. The detenu, however, was not arrested in that connection. The two G. R. Cases were started long before he was arrested on May 9, 1971 under the detention order dated May 7, 1971. He denied that he was connected or associated with the incidents mentioned in the said grounds, and said that the allegations made against him therein were false, baseless motivated and vague, and that there was absolutely no material upon the basis of which the order of detention could be made. He also alleged that some rival parties, who were in league with the police had falsely involved him in the incidents referred to in the grounds and got the District Magistrate to issue the said detention order. These allegations were denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, the assertion therein being that there was reliable material before the District Magistrate relating to the illegal and anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and that it was after careful examination of that material that the impugned order was passed.