BIJOLI PROVA BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cases are taken up together for consideration as the facts and the grounds of detention are identical in both.

(2.) The respective Petitioner was detained under Section 3(1) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act XIX of 1970), hereafter referred to as the Act. It is alleged by the respective Petitioner that they were arrested in connection with two cases but were subsequently discharged on January 18, 1971. On the same date they were taken into custody without explaining or informing that they were being detained. It is further stated that no order under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Act was served on or shown to the detenu and, as such, the detention is invalid. It is further stated that the grounds of detention were prepared and served on the respective detenu on January 22, 1971. The order of detention was passed to prevent the Petitioners from committing any act prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as it is alleged in the grounds served that the detenu committed the following acts, namely, (i) On November 25, 1970, at about 8 p.m. on Dwarika Nath Ghosh Lane the detenu and his associates and others caused a murderous attack by means of bombs on Murari Mohan Banerjee of 10 Dwarika Nath Ghosh Lane and decamped under cover of incessant explosion of bombs creating thereby a general feeling of fear, horror and insecurity in the locality, (ii) On November 25, 1970, at about 10-50 a.m. the detenu and his associates exploded high sounding bombs at the gate of Sarada Ashram Balika Vidyalaya at New Alipore with a view to force students to boycott classes and teachers from taking classes. By so doing the detenu and his associates adversely affected the system of education of the said school and also of other nearby school, such as, St. Thomas Institution and Kasiswari Balika Vidyalaya.

(3.) Mr. Manindra Mohan Sinha, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, has argued before us, in the first place, that the detention on and from January 18, 1971, is invalid and illegal as the order of detention was not executed or served on that date and the service of the grounds of detention on January 22, 1971, cannot cure the defect of non-service of the order of detention. Secondly, it has been urged, that as the grounds of detention were prepared and served on January 22, 1971, the grounds did not exist on January 18, 1971, and, as such, there was no basis of satisfaction of the detaining authority on January 18, 1971. Thirdly, it has been urged that the grounds, particularly ground No. 2, are vague and irrelevant and, as such, the order of detention is invalid.