ANIL DEY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition who has moved for his release from jail was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The grounds of detention communicated under Section 8 (1) of the Act read thus:

(2.) In contrast to this sole episode on the basis of which the detention order - as its recital runs - is based, we have the affidavit of the District Magistrate which states:

(3.) It is apparent from this averment that the District Magistrate has derived his subjective satisfaction from the circumstances that the detenu is a "notorious stealer of railway stores" operating in Dum Dum Railway yard. If this be true, the key question arises whether the constitutional safeguards in Article 22 (5) translated into sec. 8 of the M.I.S.A. has been violated in that a material circumstance of bio-data which has influenced the authority, and regarding which the affected party had a right to make a representation, had in fact not been transmitted. It is obligatory that the basic facts operating to generate subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu if the constitutional limitation on deprivation of freedom is not to be rendered a rope of sand. In this context counsel cited two decisions of this Court (Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal, W.P. Nos. 1679 etc. of 1973 D/- 1-2-1974 = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 679) and Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 1456 of 1973, D/- 8-2-1974, reported in AIR 1974 SC 806)). Counsel contended that the ratio to these cases applied to the present instance of detention and the detenu was, therefore, entitled to be enlarged. In W.P. Nos. 1679 etc. of 1973, D/- 1-2-1974 = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 679), Sarkaria, J., observed: