Judgment

DWIVEDI, J. :- This is a Habeas Corpus petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Babul Mitra, was detained in Jail by an order of the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, dated October 5, 1971. The order was made under S. 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The District Magistrate reported to the State Government about his detention on October 6, 1971. The grounds of detention were served on him on the same date. The State Government approved his detention on October 15, 1971. He made a representation to the State Government against his detention. The representation was received by the State Government on October 30, 1971. The State Government rejected it on November 30, 1971. On the same date the Government sent the representation to the Advisory Board for its consideration. On November 4, 1971 the Government had already placed his case before the Adivisory Board for consideration. The Advisory Board was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for his detention. So by Order dated December 11, 1971, the State Government confirmed the order of detention. Confirmation of the order was communicated to the petitioner on December 13, 1971.

2. The grounds of detention, in so far as they are material, are set out here :

"You are being detained.......on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as evidenced by the particulars given below, taken separately and collectively.

1. On 16-4-1971 at about 11.00 hours you along with Shri Barun Chowdhury of Debinagar, Police Station Moynaguri and others forced into Moynaguri Higher Secondary School, Moynaguri, prevented the school staff from giving you any resistence with threat of violence and set fire to the school building. As a result of arson caused by you the school had to be closed down sine die.

2. On 29-6-1971 at about 22 00 hours Police arrested you at Debinagar, Police Station Moynaguri with a bomb in your hand. You also made attempt to throw the bomb on the Police personnel at the time of your arrest with a view to killing them."

3. Shri A. K. Gupta has appeared as a Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioner. He has urged that the case was referred to the Advisory Board for its consideration on November 4, 1971, while the detenu s representation was sent to it on November 30, 1971. But this time-lag is only an irregularity, not going to the root of the matter, for no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. The Advisory Board has considered his representation before making its report on December 3, 1971.

4. Another submission is that the State Government considered his representation a month after its receipt. It is said that there was inordinate delay in considering his representation and that accordingly the detention is illegal. Shri Sukumar Sen, Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal, has filed an affidavit on behalf of the State Government. He has explained the delay satisfactorily. He has stated that due to the influx of refugees from East Pakistan at that time most of the officers of the Home Department of the State Government were busy with the serious problems concerning refugees. He has further said that there was an abrupt increase in the number of detention cases at that time as there was a spate of anti-social activities by Naxalities and other political extremists in the State. It is said that on account of those two special reasons the State Government could not give early attention to the detenu s representation.

5. It has been held by this Court in a series of cases that the representation of the detenu should be considered as soon as possible. The question is whether in the instant case the petitioner s representation was considered by the Government as soon as possible. It seems to us that having regard to the averment of Shri Sukumar Sen, the representation was considered as soon as possible. It is conmon knowledge that the State of West Be