RAMESHWAR SHAW Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BURDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which this petition for Habeas Corpus raises for our decision is whether the order of detention passed against, and served on, the petitioner Rameshwar Shaw while he was in jail custody is justified by S. 3 (1) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. 4 of 1950) (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The answer to this question would naturally depend upon a fair and reasonable construction of the relevant clause of the said section.

(2.) The District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed an Order on the February 9, 1963, whereby he directed that the petitioner should be detained. The Order recites that the District Magistrate was 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. This order was served on the petitioner on February 15, 1963, in Burdwan Jail where he had been kept as a result of a remand order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction which had taken cognizance of a criminal complaint against him. As required by S. 7 (1) of the Act, the grounds on which the petitioner's detention had been ordered by the detaining authority were communicated to him on the same day. In due course, the State Government approved of the said Order on February 16, 1963. The case of the detenu was then placed before the Advisory Board which recommended the continuance of the petitioner's detention. Thereafter, the State Government by its Order passed on April 23, 1963 confirmed the detention of the petitioner under S. 11 of the Act. This Order of the State Government was ultimately served on the petitioner in the Burdwan Jail on April 29, 1963.

(3.) The grounds for the petitioner's detention which have been served on him indicate that material had been placed before the detaining authority which showed that the petitioner was indulging in anti-social activities and that in pursuance of the said activities, he had threatened many people with assault and in fact had assaulted them. These grounds further show that the petitioner had disturbed public order in areas within Faridpur. Andal, Raniganj and Asansol police stations within the district of Burdwan and five instances were cited in support of this ground. The notice conveying the said grounds to the petitioner further alleged that as a result of the criminal activities of the petitioner set out in the notice, confusion had been created in the lives of the peaceful citizens of the areas, and so, the detaining authority was satisfied that it was necessary to detain the petitioner to prevent him from indulging in prejudicial activities. The notice further informed the petitioner that if he wanted to make a representation against the order of detention passed by the detaining authority, he should take steps to forward his representation as indicated in the notice. He was also told that in case his representation was received, his case would be forwarded to the Advisory Board, and if he desired to address the Advisory Board personally, he might make a request in that behalf and the same would be considered.