Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- This petition came up for hearing before us on April 24, 1972. After hearing the arguments, both on behalf of the petitioner and the State of West Bengal, we found that the petitioner s detention was not sustainable. We, therefore, directed release of the petitioner and said at that time we would give our reasons for that order later on. We now proceed to give those reasons.

2. The petitioner was detained under an order dated June 23, 1971 passed by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under power reserved to him under sub-s. (1) read with sub-s (3) of S. 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The said order stated that it was passed with a view to preventing the petitioner from "acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order". Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was arrested on June 28 1971 and detained in the Dum Dum Central Jail. The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner first recited that he was being detained to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and then set out the particulars thereof which ran as follows:

"That on the night of 1-6-71 at about 01.30 hours, while committing theft of rice from Wagon No. SE 39751 at Bengaon Railway Station Yard, you and your associates charged bombs upon the on-duty R.P.F. party with a view to do away with their lives, when challenged by them. As a result of your bomb charge SR 3179 Himungshu Bhushan Dhar Sharma of the R.P.F. party sustained burn injury on his person. By explosion of bombs you and your associates created panic in the station area and in the adjoining locality you created disturbance of public order thereby."

3. The ground for detention thus did not mention that the acts which the petitioner was alleged there to have committed had affected or had any relation to the security of the State, though that expression, as aforesaid, was included in the impugned detention order.

4. Against the said order, the petitioner sent to the Government his representation which was received by it on July 9, 1971. The Government rejected the said representation and then referred the petitioner s case together with the said representation to the Advisory Board. On August 30, 1971, the Board made its report to the effect that in its view there as sufficient cause justifying the detention. The Government thereafter confirmed by its order of September 8, 1971 the impugned order and the petitioner s detention thereunder and communicated that order to the petitioner on October 11, 1971.

5. Mr. Markandeya, appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner, raised the following contentions in his challenge against the validity of the impugned order: (1) that the District Magistrate s recital in the impugned order that he was satisfied that the petitioner s detention was necessary so as to prevent him from acting in a manner "prejudicial to the security of the State or maintenance of public order" showed the casualness with which the order as passed inasmuch as the District Magistrate merely copied out the language of S. 3 without being certain whether his satisfaction was based on one or the other; (2) that this was particularly so as the ground of detention framed by him did not even mention the expression "security of the State" which fact further disclosed that the said ground had no relation to such security of the State: (3) that one of the reasons for detention given in the impugned order being thus absent, the impugned order was bad in law, and (4) that there was delay by the Government in considering the representation of the petitioner, which the Government even now had not explained and that such delay according to the decisions of this Court was fatal to the validity of the continued detention of the petitioner.

6. The petition was resisted by the Government who filed a counter-affidavit of the Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department. T