Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- On April 30, 1971, the District Magistrate, Birbhum District, passed an order directing the detention of the petitioner under S. 3 (1) and (3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, being President s Act 19 of 1970. On that very day, he reported the fact of his having passed the said order to the State Government. The petitioner was arrested on May 4, 1971 and was served at the time of his arrest with the grounds of detention. The State Governement gave its approval to the said order on May 11, 1971. It also reported the petitioner s detention to the Central Government. On 2-6-1971, the petitioner s case was referred to the Advisory Board and the Board reported on July 9, 1971 that there was sufficient cause for detention. On August 7, 1971, the State Government gave confirmation under S. 12 of the Act to the detention order and continuation of detention thereunder. Thus, the order or decision of confirmation and continuation was made after the expiration of the period of three months from the date of the arrest and detention of the petitioner.

2. The grounds for detention served on the petitioner alleged (1) that on January 16, 1971 he and his associates broke open the office room of the Junior Basic Sishu Vidyapith, Dubrajpur, and set fire to the records, books etc. lying there causing damage to its property worth Rs. 500/-, (2) that on February 18, 1971 he and his associates threw crackers in the office room of the temporary election office of the Forward Block party at Dubrajpur, which act endangered the lives of those present in the office at the time, and (3) that on February 20, 1971, he and his associates set fire to the office room of Balijuri Junior High School, Dubrajpur, thereby destroying the school s record, furniture, doors and windows. It appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State that certain criminal proceedings were started against the petitioner in respect of his aforesaid acts under the Penal Code, the Explosive Substance Act and the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1970. The police, however, had to submit a final report as the witnesses to the aforesaid incidents were unwilling to come forward to give evidence.

3. Counsel for the petitioner raised three contentions against the validity of the petitioner s detention under the said order. These were (1) that the order or decision, confirming detention order and continuation of petitioner s detention thereunder having been made by the State Government after expiration of three months from the date of his arrest and detention, was illegal, (2) that the grounds of detention were not germane to and did not establish that the activities of the petitioner alleged therein were prejudicial to either the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, and (3) that the detention order itself showed casualness and non-application of mind by the detaining authority inasmuch as it alleged that the said order had becomes necessary with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting prejudicially to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order. It was urged that the use of the disjunctive or , as aforesaid, showed that the detaining authority was not sure as to whether the petitioner s said alleged activities fell under one head or the other, over which the subjective satisfaction of the authority could be the foundation for the detention.

4. Taking the first contention first, it will be noted that S. 12 (1) of the Act does not lay down in any express terms the time within which the State Government has to confirm the detention order and make a decision to continue the detention of the person concerned in a case where there can be detention for more than three months if an Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for detention. Sub-section (2) of S. 12 and the words "may confirm" in sub-s. (1) indicate three courses which the State ca