ARUN KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By his order dated April 7, 1971, the District Magistrate, Howrah, directed the detention of the petitioner under Sec. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, President's Act 19 of 1970 on his being satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view of prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Accordingly, the petitioner was arrested and detained in jail on May 3, 1971 when he was served with grounds for his detention as required by the Act.

(2.) The ground so served upon him alleged that at a secret meeting held on January 14, 1971 at Balak Sangha Maidan in Tantipara Lane, Shibpur, the petitioner volunteered to be a member of the Action Squad of what is commonly known as the Nexalite party and assured the members of that party present there "to supply pipe guns, ammunition and bomb making materials to the Action Squad". He also "urged the members to select school teachers, supporting the CPI (M) and responsible for making anti - CPI (ML) propaganda among the students and remove them from the party's way by killing them, to continue raids on educational institutions, post offices, police pickets etc. and to annihilate jotedars, police personnel, business men and members of the rival political parties", and took resolutions to stop the ensuing mid-term election in Howrah district, particularly in Shibpur area, raid educational institutions, post offices, police camps and other Government offices and to annihilate jotedars, business men, police personnel etc." The second ground was that during a raid by the police on January 28, 1971 at about 2 a.m. and petitioner along with another associates was found in a room which was used as a miniature workshop for manufacturing pipe guns and one complete and one incomplete pipe guns together with some implement for manufacturing improvised fire-arms etc. were seized. The said room stood in the petitioner's name and he and his said associate were working there as engineers of the said workshop. The petitioner and his said associate were arrested by the police during the said raid.

(3.) There can be no doubt that the allegations contained in these grounds fell under cl. (d) of sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Act which defines the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order", one of the grounds upon the satisfaction in respect of which the detaining authority under the act can pass an order of detention.