Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- The petitioner by this Write Petition challenges the validity of the order of preventive detention, dated June 29, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, being President Act XIX of 1970. The said order recites that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On July 1, 1971, the District Magistrate, as required by the Act, reported about his having passed the said order to the State Government and that the Government approved the said order of detention on July 9,1971. In the meantime, in pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on July 2, 1971 and was served at the time of his arrest with the ground of detention. The said ground stated that, in the early hours of June 1, 1971 at about 1.30 a. m. while committing theft of rice from Wagon No. SE-39751 at Bongaon Railway Station Yard, the petitioner and his associates, when challenged by the members of R. P. F. then on duty, hurled bombs at them with a view to take their lives and that as a result of the said act SR 3179 Himungshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R. P. F. party sustained burn injury on his person. The ground further stated that by the said act the petitioner and his associates created panic in the Station area and in the adjoining locality and also thereby created disturbance of public order.

2. On July 9, 1971, the Government received the representation made by the petitioner against the said order of detention. The Government rejected the representation on July 30, 1971. Thereafter the Government submitted to the Advisory Board the case of the petitioner together with all the relevant papers connected with it including the said representation. By its report dated August 21, 1971 the Advisory Board expressed its opinion that there was sufficient cause justifying the issuance of the said order of detention.

3. Mr. Dutta, who appeared for the petitioner amicus curiae, could not find any legal infirmity either in 1651 the said order of detention or the various steps taken in pursuance of it under the Act. He, however, raised two contentions. His first contention was that the petitioner was illiterate as evidenced by the fact that when served with the ground of detention he acknowledged the receipt thereof not by his signature, but by affixing his left thumb impression. His argument was that though the petitioner was served with a Bengali translation of the said ground of detention, such service was of no assistance to him since he was illiterate. Therefore, in the absence of the said ground having been read over and explained to him there was no adequate opportunity given to him to make a proper representation. Mr. Dutta contended that the respondent-State had not stated in the counter-affidavit that apart from serving the petitioner with the translation of the said ground of detention the said ground was explained to him in his own language. In our view there is no substance in the contention. Neither in his petition before this Court, nor in his representation to the Government had the petitioner raised the aforesaid contention, with the result that there was neither an occasion nor any chance to the respondent to reply to such a contention. It is possible that on realising that the petitioner was an illiterate person the District Magistrate might well have read over and explained to the petitioner the ground of detention as translated in Bengali. Merely because that fact has not been expressly stated in the counter-affidavit, it would not mean that the ground was not explained to the petitioner in Bengali. Had the ground not been read over and explained to him the petitioner would have complained in his representation that he was not in a position to know the precise nature and content of the ground, and th