Judgment

DUA, J. :- This petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus by Manu Bhusan Roy Prodhan has been forwarded to this Court by the Superintendent, Dum Dum Central Jail, West Bengal.

2. Pursuant to the order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on August 21, 1971 in exercise of the powers conferred on him by S. 9 read with sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he was arrested on November 11, 1971.

The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read :

"On 16-4-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with others committed a murderous assault on Shri Bulo Das Gupta on the road in front of the office of Mahila Samity, Dhupguri, Police Station Dhupguri, District Jalpaiguri causing severe injuries on his person. Shri Das Gupta subsequently died in hospital. As a result of this murder committed by you people of the locality became highly terrorised and the public peace was greatly disturbed.

On 19-7-71 at about 19.30 hours you along with others forcibly entered into Dhupguri High School, Police Station Dhupguri, District Jalpaiguri and set fire to the school buildings causing irreparable loss to the institution in particular and the people in general. You set fire to the school with the ulterior object of causing dislocation in the present system of education and to compel the school authorities to close down the same. As a result of the fire set by you, the teachers and the local people become panic-stricken and the public peace was greatly disturbed."

The fact of making the detention order was reported to the State Government on August 23, 1971. It was approved by the said Government on August 31, 1971: the same day this fact was reported to the Central Government. On December 9, 1971 the case was placed before the Advisory Board which gave its opinion as per its report dated January 18, 1972 that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner s detention. The State Government confirmed this order on February 1, 1972 and this fact was reported to the Central Government on February 3, 1972.

3. The petitioner s representation was received by the State Government on December 11, 1971. But it was considered on January 14, 1972. In the counter-affidavit this delay has been explained in these words :

".................due to influx of refugees as well as the Pakistan aggression at that time, most of the officers of the Home Department of the State Government were very busy with serious problems which threatened and faced the country at that time, and as such the said representation could not be considered earlier. Moreover I further state that delay was also caused due to abrupt increase in number of the detention cases during that time as there was spate of anti-social activities by Naxalities and other political extremists in the State."

4. Before us Shri S. K. Gambhir, the learned counsel appearing as amicus curiae submitted that the petitioner who is only 17 years old and is studying in the Xth class in Dhupguri High School, was arrested on August 5, 1971 in connection with six cases. He was bailed out on November 10, 1971 but was re-arrested soon thereafter. It was further submsitted that ground no. 1 stated in the order of detention is vague and has also no relevance to the maintenance of public order with the result that the petitioner s detention must be held to be bad in law for it is not possible to say how far this ground influenced the decision of the authority concerned in making the impugned order of detention.

5. On behalf of the State it was contended that the petitioner was found to be absconding when the detention order was made and that he was arrested on November 11, 1971. Reliance for this submission was placed on the counter-affidavit. It is noteworthy that in that counter-affidavit, which was