Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenges the validity of the order dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Pargana, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 Act No. XIX of 1970 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), directing the detention of the petitioner.

2. The impugned order states that the District Magistrate was satisfied that it ,was necessary that the petitioner should be detained with a view to prevent him from acting in any 2385 manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order as provided by Section 3 (1) of the Act.

3. According to the affidavit in reply of the District Magistrate, he reported under Section 3(4) of the Act to the State Government on March 5, 1971 regarding the fact of his having passed the order of detention together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars having a bearing on the same. It is further stated that the petitioner was arrested on March 5, 1971 and was served on the same day with the order of detention together with the grounds for passing the order of detention. The petitioner was also informed that he is entitled to make a representation to the State Government against the order of detention and that such representation is to be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of Jail. He was further informed that his case will be placed under Section 10 of the Act before the Advisory Board within 30 days from the date of the order of detention. He was also informed that under Section 11 of the Act; the Advisory Board shall, if so desired by him, hear him in person and that the petitioner must intimate the said desire to be heard in the representations that he may make to the State Government.

4. The State Government considered the report of the District Magistrate together with other materials placed before it and approved, on March 11, 1971 as required by Section 3 (4) of the Act, the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate.

5. On the same day, as required by Section 3 (5) the State Government sent the necessary report to the Central Government. The State Government on April 3, 1971 placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board.

6. The petitioner sent two representations dated March 17 and April 19, 1971 denying the allegations made in the grounds for passing the order of detention and pleaded that he was innocent. He has admitted in these representations that he was arrested on March 5,1971. In neither of these representations did the petitioner make a request that he should be provided an opportunity of being heard in person by the Advisory Board. The State Government rejected the representations of the petitioner, but forwarded them to the Advisory Board for being considered. The Advisory Board, after considering the materials placed before it relating to the detention of the petitioner including the representations made by him on March 17, 1971 and April 19, 1971 submitted its report on May 11, 1971 to the State Government stating that it is of opinion that there is sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government passed an order on July 12, 1971 under Section 12 (1) of the Act confirming the order of detention dated March 2, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate and directed that the petitioner s detention shall be continued till the expiration of twelve months from the date of his detention.

7. The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the ground that he has never committed any offence nor has he been involved in any illegal activities as alleged in the grounds of detention. He has further stated that the various allegations mentioned against him are false and that he never participated in any