Judgment

SHELAT, J.: This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution impugns the validity of the order, dated January 3, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate of Jalpaiguri in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-sec. (1) read with sub-sec. (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 directing the detention of the petitioner. The impugned order stated that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it was necessary that the petitioner should be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State of the maintenance of public order as provided by Section 3 (1) of the Act. According to the affidavit in reply of the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department to the Government of West Bengal, the order could not be served upon the petitioner and the petitioner could not be arrested and detained till January 30, 1971 as the petitioner till then was absconding.

2. On January 4, 1971, the District Magistrate reported to the State Government the fact of his having passed the said order together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars having a bearing on the same. These were considered by the Government and on January 13, 1971, the Governor approved the said order as required by Section 3 (4) of the Act. As required by Section 3 (5), the Governor made his report to the Central Government submitting along with it the grounds of detention and other particulars.

3. As aforesaid, the petitioner was arrested on January 30, 1971 and was placed under detention. He was served with the impugned order and the grounds of detention. The petitioner thereafter made his representation, dated February 11, 1971 to the State Government which was received by that Government on February 16, 1971. On February 25, 1971, as is necessary under Section 10 of the Act, the State Government placed the petitioner s case together with the grounds of detention, his representation and other relevant material before the Advisory Board constituted under the Act for its report. On March 23, 1971, the Government rejected the petitioner s representation. On April 5, 1971, the Advisory Board made its report after considering the grounds for detention, the petitioner s representation and, other available materials after hearing the petitioner as desired by him. The report of the Board was that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner s detention Thereafter, by his order, dated May 24, 1971, the Governor, by virtue of his power under section 12 (1), confirmed the impugned order-and directed the petitioner s detention to continue till the, expiration of twelve months from the date of his detention.

4. Under section 3 (1) of the Act, what is required is the satisfaction of the State Government or the relevant District Magistrate, as the case may be, of the necessity to detain a person with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. As defined by sub-sec. (2) of that section, the expression "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order" inter alia means:

(a) "using, or instigating any person by words, either spoken or written, of by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, to use, any lethal weapon" which includes firearms, explosive or corrosive substances, swords, spears, daggers, bows and arrows; or

"(b) committing mischief, within the meaning of Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, by fire or any explosive substance on any property of Government or any local authority or any corporation owned or controlled by Government or any University or other educational institution or public building, where the commission of such mischief disturbs, or is likely to disturb, public order;"

5. The grounds for detention furnished to the petitioner stated (i) that the petitioner had been assisting the C. P. I. (M. L.) in impleme