SARAT MUDOI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NOWGONG AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was detained by an order passed on 29th October 1982 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicia1 to the maintenance of public order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This satisfaction was founded on six grounds. The legality of the order has been challenged in this writ petition. The submission made are mainly four, these being:

(2.) THE first submission is sought to be brought home by Sri S.N. Medhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by referring to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Biru Mahto (sic)District Magistrate, Dhanbad, reported in : (1982) 3 SCC 322. That was a case wherein the District Magistrate who had filed return claimed as if he was the detaining authority. This was found not established on facts. As the deponent had not based affidavit on records of the case it was held that the affidavit be ignored. Mr. Medhi submits that in the present case well Shri S.K. Tewair who for filed the affidavit on behalf Respondent No. 1 having not stated that he was the successor to the incumbent who had passed the detention order, should be held that Shri Tewari has as if claimed himself to tfo detaining authority, which in fact is not so. The further of the argument is that on the ratio of the aforesaid decision should ignore the affidavit, We have found it difficult to accept submission because the affidavit of Shri Tewari cannot really read to mean that he was the person who had passed the of detention. This apart, he has clearly stated in his affidavit that he had gone through the entire records of the case (which raised him of the full facts) making him competent to swear the affidavit. The case at hand is therefore distinguishable and (sic) do not think if we will be justified in setting aside the impugned order on this ground alone. As there is no allegation of personal bias or mala fide, this is not a case where the impugned (sic) can be struck , down for want of proper affidavit. In his connection reference may be made specifically of Shaik Hanif and Ors. v. State of West Bengal : AIR 1974 SC 679 and Asgar District Magistrate Burdwan and Ors., A.I.R. 1974 SC (sic)

(3.) WE are also not impressed by the submission of Shri Medhi that ground No. 6 is vague; or that no seizure list having been given, the right of the Petitioner to make effective representation was denied, Let us read this ground: