Judgment

RAY J. :- The petitioner made an application under Article 32 of the Constitution requiring the respondent to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be released.

2. At the conclusion of the hearing of this petition on 15 October, 1969 we directed the release of the petitioner and stated that the reasons would be given later on. We are stating our reasons for the order.

3. On 5th June, 1969 the District Magistrate 24-Parganas, West Bengal made an order under Section 3 (2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) for the detention of the petitioner. On 7th June 1969 the petitioner was arrested and on the same day grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. On 9th June, 1969 information was given to the State Government. On 14th June, 1969 the Governor was pleased to approve the order of detention and on the same day the Governor sent the report to the Central Government under Section 3 (4) of the Act together with the grounds of detention. On 23rd June, 1969 the petitioner made a representation to the State Government. On 1st July, 1969 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board under Section 9 of the Act together with the said representation. On 13th August, 1969 the Advisory Board after consideration of the materials placed before it was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On 19th August, 1969 the State Government is alleged to have rejected the petitioner s representation. By an order dated 26th August, 1969 Governor was pleased to confirm the order of detention of the petitioner.

4. The only contention on behalf of the petitioner was that though the petitioner made the representation on 23rd June, 1969 the Government did not consider the said representation with reasonable and proper expedition.

5. On behalf of the State of West Bengal it was contended first that the matter was referred to the Advisory Board along with the petitioner s representation and the State Government considered the report of the Advisory Board and, secondly the affidavit of Bathindra Nath Sen Gupta affirmed on 19th September, 1969 will show that enquiries were made after the petitioner had made the representation and the Government therefore considered the representation.

6. The affidavit of Rathindra Nath Sen Gupta is of little value. The deponent stated first that he caused further enquiries to be made through the Superintendent Railway Police after he had received the representation of the petitioner from the State Government, secondly, that the Superintendent, Railway Police took a little time to submit a report, thirdly, the deponent after being satisfied about anti-social activities of the petitioner informed the State Government on 12th August 1969 to the effect that he did not recommend the release of the petitioner, and, fourthly that the State Government on 19th August, 1969 rejected the petitioner s representation. There is no affidavit by the Superintendent of Police, Sealdah who is alleged to have made further enquiries. One will look in vain into the affidavit of the deponent to find out as to when the deponent entrusted the said enquiry to the Superintendent, Railway Police and further as to what time was taken for enquiry and report. The Court in entitled to know the time and the steps taken along with the nature of the enquiry. The importance of the matter lies in the fact that it is a case of preventive detention and the personal liberty of a citizen is under consideration of the State Government. The State Government is, therefore, bound to give the utmost information to this Court.

7. The Preventive Detention Act confers powers on the Central Government or the State Government to make an order for detention of a person. The order of detention can be passed by the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police or the Collector. When an order is made by any of thes