Judgment

SHELAT, Ag. C. J.:- At all material times the petitioner was an employee of the Government of West Bengal in the Collectorate of Hooghly District. He was arrested on January 29, 1972 pursuant to the order of detention dated January 25, l972 passed by the District Magistrate, Hooghly under Section 3 (2) read with S. 3 (1) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971. The said order was passed "with a view to preventing him from acting. in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". He was served with the grounds of detention on that very day. The said grounds of detention were in connection with certain incidents alleged to have taken place on April 25, 1971, September 14, 1971, October 12, 1971 and January 19, 1972, as set out therein.

2. Before the said order was issued, the petitioner and six others, also Government employees in Hooghly Collectorate, were prosecuted for their alleged parts in the first two incidents on the basis of the first information report dated September 14, 1971 under Sections 143/506 of the Penal Code. On March 29, 1972 they were discharged by the Magistrate on a final report of the police dated March 10, 1972. Pursuant to the said order of detention, the petitioner was detained and is still in Hooghly jail.

3. The mother of the petitioner thereafter filed an application No. 318 of 1972 in the High Court of Calcutta under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that application the petitioner s detention was challenged only on two grounds, namely, vagueness of the grounds of detention and their irrelevance. On May 29, 1972, the High Court dismissed the said application. The present petition is more comprehensive and for the first time challenges the validity of several provisions of the Act.

4. The record before us shows that all the steps required under the Act have been taken and complied with in the time and manner prescribed by the Act. No objection, therefore, to the petitioner s detention on that ground can be validly taken. The petitioner s case was referred to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act, which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention. On April 15, 1972, the State Government on receipt of the said report, confirmed the order of detention under S. 12 (1) and directed that detention to continue for three years from the date of detention. The said order of confirmation was duly communicated to the detenu. The petitioner thereafter made his representation to the State Government on August 10, 1972, that is to say, several months after reference of his case to the Board and the said order of confirmation. The said representation was not considered by the State Government as by that time this writ petition had already been filed and was pending before this Court.

5. The order of detention has been challenged in the petition on the following grounds:

(1) that the grounds of detention were vague;

(2) that there was no nexus between the grounds and maintenance of public order;

(3) that they were mechanically framed without the detaining authority applying his mind;

(4) that the order was mala fide and passed for collateral purpose, namely, to victimise the active members of the State Co-ordination Committee of which the petitioner was one;

(5) that S. 6 (6) (d) and (e, of the Defence of India Act, 42 of 1971 increasing the detention period from 12 months to 3 years by the amendment of S. 13 of the Act has treated equally citizens of India and foreigners and has thereby violated Art 14;

(6) that the said order of confirmation providing three years detention was ultra vires Art. 22.

The District Magistrate by his counter-affidavit denied all the grounds of challenge to the validity of the said order.

6. On October 24, 1972, the petitioner applied for urging additional grounds of challenge and on liberty being granted to amend, the petition was amended. Stated briefly, the additional grounds challenged the validity of Ss. 3, 5, 8, 11, 12