Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- This is a petition through jail under Art. 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus by Kanu Biswas, who has been ordered by the District Magistrate 24-Parganas to be detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

2. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13, 1971. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14, 1971 and was served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. On November 18, 1971 the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on November 24, 1971. Necessary report was also sent on that day by the State Government to the Central Government. On December 13, 1971 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board. In the meanwhile, on December 12, 1971 the State Government received a representation of the petitioner. The representation was considered by the State Government and was rejected on January 11, 1972. The representation was thereafter forwarded to the Advisory Board. The Board, after considering the material placed before it, including the petitioner s representation, and after hearing the petitioner in person, sent its report to the State Government on January 14, 1972. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the Petitioner. On February 2, 1972 the State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner. Communication about the confirmation of the order was thereafter sent to the petitioner.

3. Affidavit of Shri B. Mukhopadhya, District Magistrate of 24-Paraganas, who passed the impugned order, has been filed in opposition to the petition. Mr. Bagga has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State has been represented by Mr. Chakravarti.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the particular acts on account of which the order for the detention of the petitioner has been made were not germane to the maintenance of public order and, as such, the order for his detention could not be validly made for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In this respect we find that according to the grounds of detention, the order for the petitioner s detention was made on the ground that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below taken separately or collectively:

"That on 26-9-71 at about 18.30 hours while Baidyanath Bandhopadhya of Champapukur, P. S. Basirhat, District 24-Paraganas along with his wife was travelling in a 3rd class compartment of Up Basirhat local train from Barasat, you along with your associates attacked him and his wife with open knives between Champapukur R/S and Basirhat R/S and robbed them of Wrist Watch, Gold Ornaments, Cash valued at Rupees 725/- by putting them in the fear of death. By your such activities you created terror and panic among the travelling passengers and public order was disturbed thereby.

On 4-11-71 at about 21-40 hours, you and your associates armed with bombs, daggers, knives and iron rods etc. attacked police on the platform at Beliaghata railway station with a view to take their lives and to intimidate the public you charged two bombs which exploded with terrible sound endangering the on-duty Police.

Your such action was so violent that it created panic and confusion among the passengers there and then. You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

It would appear from the abov