Judgment

KHANNA, J. :- Hasan Ali petitioner was ordered by the District Magistrate Midnapore as per order dated October 11, 1971 to be detained under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community." In pursuance of that order, the petitioner was arrested on October 24, 1971 and was served with the order of detention along with the ground of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. The petitioner has approached this Court through jail under Article 32 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of habeas corpus.

2. The District Magistrate sent report to the State Government on October 13, 1971 about the making of the detention order together with necessary particulars. The said Government approved the detention order on October 21, 1971. Something after November 10, 1971 the State Government received representation dated November 8, 1971 from the petitioner. The said representation after being considered was rejected by the Government on December 16, 1971. In the meanwhile, on November 11, 1971 the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board. The representation of the petitioner after being rejected too was sent to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board, after considering the material placed before it, sent its report to the State Government on December 20, 1971. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner on December 22, 1971.

3. The petition has been resisted by the State Government and the affidavit of Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal has been filed in opposition to the petition.

4. Mr. Prashar has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State has been represented by Mr. Mukhoti.

5. The first contention which has been raised by Mr. Prashar is that the petitioner was not produced before the Advisory Board and, as such, was deprived of an opportunity of making oral submissions to the Board. In this respect we find that in the ground of detention which was served upon the petitioner along with the order of detention, he was informed that he could make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that his case would be placed before the Advisory Board within 30 days from the date of detention. The petitioner was also told that in case he desired to be heard in person by the Advisory Board, he should intimate such desire in his representation to the State Government. The petitioner in pursuance of that submitted a fairly long representation. It was, however nowhere stated by the petitioner that he desired to be heard in person by the Advisory Board. It would, thus, follows that in spite of being told that he could have a personal hearing before the Advisory Board, the petitioner failed to intimate that he desired such a hearing. No grievance can consequently be made by the petitioner on the score that he was not afforded a personal hearing by the Advisory Board.

6. It has been next argued by Mr. Prashar that the ground of detention was vague as it did not specify the name of his associates. According to the ground of detention, the petitioner was ordered to be detained on the ground that he had been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as evidenced by the particulars given below :

"On 27-3-1971 at about 10.10 hrs., you along with your associates were found engaged in smuggling rice by train No. 110 DN at Radhamohanpur Rly. Station under Kharagpur C.R.P.S. Shri N. G. Saha, Inspector of Police, Cordoning Midnapore was there on duty to prevent smuggling of rice from the cordoned areas of Midnapore district to the statutory rationing