SHYAMAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by Shyamal Chakraborty who has been detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Three grounds have been urged by the learned counsel why we should issue a writ of habeas corpus directing his release: (1) that the detenu's representation was not considered by the Government, (2) that the grounds furnished to the detenu mentioned offences under the Indian Penal Code and cannot be used for the purpose of detaining the detenu except in emergencies, and (3) that the grounds do not have any relation to the maintenance of public order. Following are the facts as they emerge from the affidavits on record.

(2.) The detenu was detained by an order No. 3846-D.D. (S), D/- 13th November 1968, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in exercise of powers conferred on him by Section 3 (2) of the Act. The detenu was arrested on November 13 1968 and was served with the grounds of detention both in English and in vernacular on the same day. On 15th November, 1968, the Commissioner of Police reported the fact of such detention of the petitioner together with the grounds and other particulars having bearing on the necessity of the order to the State Government. On 19th November, 1968, the Governor was pleased to approve the said order of detention under Section 3 (3) of the Act and on the same day the Governor submitted the report to the Central Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act together with grounds and other particulars having bearing on the necessity of the order. On 7th December, 1968, his case was placed before the Advisory Board under Section 9 of the Act. On 6th January, 1969 the Advisory Board after consideration of the materials placed before it was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner. The petitioner had not submitted any representation to the State Government till then. By an order dated 8th January, 1969, the Governor was pleased to confirm the order of detention. It appears that on the 13th January, 1969 and 16th January, 1969, the detenu made representations. After the receipt of these representations the same were sent by the Home Department to the Commissioner of Police for his report. On 1st April, 1969 the Commissioner of Police informed the Home Department that he did not recommend the release of the petitioner. But the representations of the petitioner were not received back from the Commissioner of Police with his letter of the 1st April, 1969. Later on the Commissioner of Police sent back the representation dated 13th January, 1969 to the Home Department. This Court on 28th March, 1969 issued a notice under Article 32 of the Constitution to the Commissioner of Police and to the State Government to show cause why Rule Nisi should not be issued made returnable three weeks hence. On receipt of this notice the State Government refrained from passing any order on the representation dated 13th January, 1969. The representation dated 16-th January, 1969 is untraceable, but effort is being made to trace it. According to the Commissioner of Police it was on the same lines as the representation dated 13th January, 1969.

(3.) It is necessary to reproduce the grounds of detention served on the detenu and they are in the following terms: