JNAN RANIAN BANERJEE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the petitioner is challenging an order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, on the 10th June, 1974, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub -section (1) (a) (ii) read with Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu. Amiya Kumar Banerjee, from acting in any manter prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The two incidents relied upon in the grounds served on the detenu are set out hereinbelow. (1) That at about 18.30 hours on 2 -12 -1973, you along with your associates being armed with bombs and bottles formed an unlawful assembly on Lake View Road and created a great disturbance of public order by exploding bombs and hurling bottles at random near the crossing of Sarat Banerji Road and Lake View Road at the aforesaid date and time with intent to create terror in the said locality. As a result of your action as aforesaid, people started running helter -skelter out of fear and panic and there prevailed a great sense of insecurity in the minds of the people of the said area amounting to public disorder. (2) That at about 11.45 hours on 9 -12 -1973, you along with your associates being armed with bombs and fire arms formed an unlawful assembly on Kankulia Road and committed riot at the crossing of Kankulia Road and Ballygunge Station Road by exploding bombs at the aforesaid date and time and being chased by a police party which had arrived there in the meantime on receipt of the information of disturbance, you along with your said associates also exploded bombs aiming at the said police party at the aforesaid date, time and place and being further chased you along with your above associates again hurled bombs towards them (police personnel) on Kankulia Road in front of premises No. 127 (Kankulia Road) at about 12.35 on the same date in order to facilitate your retreat. The above incident created a great sense of fear and insecurity among the local people who closed the doors and windows of their respective houses out of fear and panic affecting public order.

(2.) THE said detention order was made on 10th June, 1974 and the fact of making the said order was reported to the State Government on the same day. The detention of the detenu pursuant to the aforesaid order commenced on and from 10th June, 1974. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu on 14th June, 1974, The detention order was approved by the State Government on 21st June, 1974 and the State Government duly, reported to Central Government under Section 3 (4) of the said Act on 21st June, 1974, Written representation of the detenu dated 2nd July, 1974, was received by the State Government on 5th July. 1974 and was rejected by the State Government on the 9th July, 1974, Reference under Section 10 of the said Act was made to the Advisory Board on 4th July, 1974 - Report of the Advisory Board, that there is sufficient cause for detention, was sent on 17th August, 1974. The detention was confirmed under Section 12 of the said Act on 28th August, 1974 and the same was served upon the detenu on the 3rd September. 1974.

(3.) MR . D. Choudhury, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State expressed his regret that due to inadvertence para 17 onwards of the petition have not been dealt with by the detaining authority but he says that there is sufficient averment in the affidavit of the detaining authority in denial of the allegations of mala fide, baselessness and non -existence. In this context he relied on paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 11 -A, 12 -A and 13 of the said affidavit, He submitted that in any event we should place no reliance on paragraphs 17 and 20 of the petition inasmuch as that the affidavit in support of the petition has been affirmed by the father of the detenu who has purported to verify the said two affidavits as true to his knowledge which must be incorrect, According to Mr. Choudhury. whether the detenu had any connection -with this case or not and whether at the relevant time the detenu was at the place of incident or not must be within the exclusive knowledge of the detenu and the detenu's father cannot have any personal knowledge regarding the same. He also pointed out that it is not the case of the detenu's father that at the relevant time the detenu was with his father.