AJIT KUMAR KAVIRAJ Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BIRBHUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Article 32 of the Constitution for a writ of habeas corpus the petitioner challenges the validity of the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Birbhaum, on March 21, 1973, under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act No. 26 of 1971). The order of detention is passed on the ground that the petitioner has been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The impugned order on specifically founded on two grounds communicated to the petitioner. These are as follows:-

(2.) Mr. H. C. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing as Amicus Curiae, has made several submissions but it is sufficient to confine our decision to one principal ground namely, that the grounds are so vague and uncertain that it is not reasonably possible for the detenu to make an effective representation against the order of detention. Mr. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, seeks to support the order on the ground that the detenue fully understood the import of the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention and submitted a long representation to the Government which was, however, rejected. It is well settled that in a case of preventive detention under the Act it is absolutely necessary to communicate the grounds of detention to the detenu in clear and unambiguous terms giving as much particulars as will facilitate making of an effective representation in order to satisfy the detaining authority that the order is unfounded or invalid.

(3.) Before was proceed further was may note that the petitioner was arrested by the police on January 2, 1973 and was produced before the Magistrate for prosecution under Section 7 (1) (a) (ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. X of 1955) for violation of condition of West Bengal Rice and Paddy Movement Order, 1968. The first information report of that case being Khoyrasole P. S. No. 10 dated January 20, 1973, discloses that the petitioner "indulged in selling Government paddy from the D. P. agent godown at a higher rate than the scheduled". It also refers therein to the second ground mentioned in the grounds of detention. It is, therefore not surprising that the petitioner would have made a long representation to the Government against his arrest and seizure of paddy and all other allegations which were certainly known to him in the course of the court prosecution. We are, therefore, not prepared to put the cart before the horse in order to determine the validity of the impugned order in the light of the representation made by the petitioner in this case.