Judgment

DUA, J.:- These three writ petitions (Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate, Burdwan W. P. No. 216 of 1972; Shyamal Biswas v. District Magistrate, Burdwan etc., W. P. No. 217 of 1972 and Dulal Chandra Das v. District Magistrate, Burdwan etc., W. P. No. 218 of 1972) raise common questions of law and fact and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. In fact the main arguments were addressed only in Samaresh Chandra Bose v. District Magistrate (W. P. No. 216 of 1972), the arguments of this case having been adopted in the other two cases. We would, therefore, refer to the facts in W. P. No. 216 of 1972.

2. Samaresh Chandra Bose who is employed as a Supervisor of Alloy Steel Plant, Durgapur was, according to the common case of both sides arrested on October 13, 1971 and was an accused in Durgapur P. S. case (No. 33 dated October 14, 1971) under Sections 147/188/307, Indian Penal Code and under Section 6 (3) of the Indian Explosives Act. According to the petitioner he was woken up while asleep in his quarters and arrested on the morning whereas according to the respondent he was arrested at about 8.15 p.m. from Telak Road "B Zone, Durgapur. It is alleged that the petitioner, along with his associates, Shyamal Biswas and Dulal Chandra Das (the two writ petitioners in the connected cases) and other had hurled a bomb towards a Police party on patrol duty and after having done so they tried to run away, but they were chased and ultimately all three were apprehended. The petitioner, according to the respondent, was also wanted in connection with Durgapur P. S. case (No. 17 dated October 8, 1971), described by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of his writ petition to be under Sections 148, 149, 326, 307, 326, 302, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was discharged in both the aforesaid criminal cases on October 28, 1971. After his discharge the petitioner was served with the detention order dated October 26, 1971 made by the District Magistrate, Durgapur in exercise of the power conferred on him by Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) and arrested on October 28, 1971.

3. On behalf of the petitioner Shri Somnath Chatterjee, his learned Advocate, submitted as the first ground of attack against the order of detention that the petitioner s representation to the State Government was not considered with due expedition as contemplated by Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. The representation was received by the State Government on November 23, 1971 but it was disposed of about 22 days thereafter on December 16, 1971. According to him the explanation for the delay furnished by the respondent is highly unsatisfactory and this inordinate delay has, therefore, rendered the petitioner s detention invalid.

4. It is not disputed that the representation received on November 23, 1971 was considered on December 16, 1971. The explanation given by the State for the aforesaid delay in considering the petitioner s representation is contained in paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it is averred:

"............that the written representation of the detenu was duly considered by the State Government expeditiously and the same was rejected after due consideration. I further state that at that time due to influx of the refugees and due to Pakistan aggression, most of the officers of the Home Department were very busy with serious problems which faced the country at the time and as such the said representation of the petitioner could not be considered earlier, Moreover I further state that due to go-slow movement of workers launched by Co-ordination committee of the State Government Employees during the period September to November 1971 there was serious dislocation and delay in movement of files and disposal of cases. I further state that delay was also caused due to abrupt increase in number of detention cases during that time as there was spate of antisocial activ