Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- By his order, dated November 22, 1971, the District Magistrate, Nadia, directed the detention of the petitioner under and by virtue of power conferred upon him by sub-section (1) read with sub-s. (2) of S.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971. The order recites that it was issued with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Consequent upon the passing of the said order, the petitioner was arrested on December 1, 1971 and he has since then been detained in Dum Dum Central Jail.

2. The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest stated as follows:

"(1) On the night of 30-7-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with your associates entered into the Toddi Shop of Shri Gopinath Behara s/o.Late Ram Behara at Gangnapore P.S. Ranaghat, District Nadia, and stabbed Shri Gopinath Behara with daggers causing severe bleeding injuries on his person. You also terrorised the local people by exploding bombs. Subsequently, the said Gopinath Behara succumbed to his injuries at Saktinagar Hospital. Such action created terror and panic in the minds of the local peace-loving people and caused disruption to their normal work.

(2) On 31-7-71 at about 21.30 hours at Rameswarpur, P.S. Ranaghat, District Nadia, you along with your associates armed with lethal weapons attacked Ajahar Ali Khan s/o. Late Jabbur Khan of the said village and killed him by causing severe injuries on his person. You did this with a view to promoting your political ideology. Such action terrorised the local peace-loving people who out of fear and panic had to suspend their free movements and normal work."

3. As required by the Act, the District Magistrate reported the fact of his having passed the said order to the State Government and that Government approved his said action. The matter was also reported to the Central Government. The petitioner s case was then referred to the Advisory Board. In the meantime the petitioner made his representation which was received by the State Government on January 3, 1972 and was disposed of by that Government on January 25, 1972. The Board gave its opinion after considering the said representation forwarded to it by the Government together with other documents relating to the petitioner s case that there was sufficient cause for the detention. Finally, the State Government passed its order, dated February 18, 1972 confirming the said order and the petitioner s detention thereunder. It would, thus, appear that the relevant authorities under the Act took all steps, consequential to the passing of the said order, as prescribed by the Act.

4. Two points, however, were urged by counsel appearing amicus curiae for the petitioner. One was that ground No.2 of the said grounds of detention pertained to the problem of law and order and not to that of public order, the act there attributed to the petitioner being a matter between two specific individuals only, and was therefore irrelevant to the objects in respect of which only detention could be directed under the Act. The other was that there was delay of twenty one days on the part of the State Government in disposing of the petitioner s representation, which, in the circumstances of the case was inordinate, and therefore, fatal to the validity of the order and the petitioner s detention thereunder.

5. Ground No.2 of the grounds for detention contains three statements of facts: (1) the assault on and the killing of Ajahar Ali Khan, (2) the motive for causing his death, viz., the promotion of the political ideology held by the petitioner and his associates, and (3) the immediate effect of the killing upon the members of the public living in that locality. The question is whether the incident as narrated in this ground can properly be said to fall within the field of public order and not merely law and order in relation to the maintenance of which the Act does not authorise