Judgement

MATHEW, J. :- This is an application under Article 32 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and for the release of the petitioner who is alleged to be kept in illegal detention.

2. On 11-5-1971, the petitioner was arrested under an order made on 29-4-1971, by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, in the exercise of his power under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President s Act No. 19 of 1970), hereinafter called the Act. A copy of the grounds of detention was served on the petitioner as required by section 8 of the Act on 11-5-1971. The District Magistrate reported to the State Government on 4-5-1971 to the State Government on 4-5-1971 about the passing of the order of detention and the detention order was approved by the State Government on 10-5-1971. The case of detenu was placed before the Advisory Board (thereinafter called the Board) on 9-6-1971. Two representations were received by the State Government from the petitioner. They were rejected by orders dated 8-6-1971 and 7-7-1971. The representations were also forwarded to the Board. The Board was of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for the detention and it submitted its report to the State Government on 12-7-1971. The State Government confirmed the order of detention on 17-8-1971 and that was communicated to the detenu on 21-8-1971.

3. The only point taken on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition is that since the detention order was confirmed by the State Government only on 17-8-1971, it was beyond 3 months from the date of detention, namely 11-5-1971, and therefore, the detention of the petitioner after the expiry of 3 months from the date of detention was illegal.

4. It is necessary to examine the provisions of Article 22 (1) of the Constitution and the relevant sections of the Act to decide this question.

5. Article 22 (4) of the Constitution provides :

"(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless :-

(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention;

Provided that nothing in this subclause shall authorise the detention of any person beyond the maximum period prescribed by any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (b) of clause (7); or

(b) such person is detained in accordance with the provisions of any law made by Parliament under sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (7)". Section 10 of the Act provides that in every case where a detention order has been made under the Act, the State Government shall, within thirty days from the date of detention under the order, place before the Board, the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in case where the order has been made by an officer specified in sub-section (3) of section 3, also the report made by such officer under sub-section (4) of section 3. Section 11 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Board. It says that the Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and after hearing the detenu in person, if he desires to be heard, submit its report to State Government with ten weeks from the date of detention. Section 12 reads as follows :

"Action upon the report of Advisory Board: (1) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the State Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit.

(2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, the detention of the person concerned, the State Government shall revo