DULAL CHANDRA MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order of detention dated 30th March, 1973 made by the District Magistrate. Nadia under Section 3 (2), (1) of the Maintainence of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order of detention recited the satisfaction of District Magistrate that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintainence of public order it was necessary to detain him and directed that the petitioner be accordingly detained. Pursuant to the order to detention, the petitioner was arrested on 3rd April, 1973, and at the time of his arrest the grounds of detention dated 30th March, 1973, were served upon him together with their translation in Bengalee language. The grounds of detention started with a recital that the petitioner was being detained the ground that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintainence of public order and set out one incident of dacoity committed by him on the basis of which the District Magistrate had reached his subjective satisfaction in regard to the necessity of detaining the petitioner. The usual ritual prescribed by the Act was thereafter followed and the order of detention was approved by the State Government, the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected the case of the petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board and on receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board, the order of detention was confirmed by the State Government. The present petition was filed by the petitioner from jail challenging the validity of this detention.

(2.) There were several grounds urged before us on behalf of the petitioner in support of the petition, but it is not necessary to refer to all of them since there is one ground which is in our opinion sufficient to invalidate the order of detention. That ground rests on an averment made by the District Magistrate in paragraph 4 of the Affidavit filed by him in reply to the petition. The District Magistrate stated as follows in paragraph 4 of his affidavit in reply.

(3.) We, therefore, allow the petition and make the rule absolute and direct that the petitioner be set liberty forthwith.