Judgment

DUA, J.:- This is a petition for Habeas Corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution.

2. The petitioner, Beni Madhab Shaw alias Benia, was ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas under Section 3 (1) and (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), as per order dated May 10, 1972. He was arrested on the same day.

3. The grounds of detention were also served on the petitioner on that very day at the time of his arrest. Those grounds read :

"1. That on 24-3-72 at about 2.25 hours, you along with your associates committed theft of 4 bags of rice, of breaking open wagon No. 40765 of running goods train No. 733 UP between Naihati R/S and Baroda Bridge, being challenged by duty RPF patrol party you escaped leaving one bag of rice. Your action affected supplies and services then and there.

You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

2. That on 26-4-72 at about 05-30 hours you along with other 12/14 associates attacked and broke open wagon No. NR-84506 of running food-grain special train No. 731 UP on the Naihati Station Yard in between Naihati R/S. and Baroda Bridge, The R.P.F. Train escort parties challenged you and your associates when you attacked the R.P.F. party with ballasts and pelted stones and in self defence R.P.F. party fired back. You and your associates then fled away. The train services was disrupted then and there and one bag of wheat was recovered from the spot.

Your actions affected supplies and services there. You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community."

4. The petitioner was duly informed that he could make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary Home {Special) Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail in which the petitioner had been detained. All other formalities required for valid detention appear to have been duly complied with.

5. The petitioner s learned counsel, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, contended that in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, the State of West Bengal, it is stated`, that from the records it appears that, after receiving reliable information relating to the illegal, anti-social and ,prejudicial activities of the petitioner relating to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, the impugned order of detention had been passed against him under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security, Act, 1971. The counsel complained that the details of these activities had not been disclosed to the petitioner and this has seriously prejudiced him in making his representation to the Government.

6. The submission appears to us to be misconceived. This assertion in the counter affidavit, in answer to the present petition, merely suggests that the two grounds on the basis of which the impugned order was made and which were duly supplied to the petitioner, were founded on reliable information received by the authorities concerned. It has not been shown on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary under the law to disclose the sources of the information or the exact words of the information so long as the activities which formed the foundation of the impugned order were actually disclosed to the petitioner. Under S. 8 of the aforesaid Act only grounds of order of detention are required to be disclosed to the persons affected by such order. Those grounds in the present case were actually disclosed. They are neither vague nor ambiguous. They furnish adequate information for enabling the petitioner to make effective representation against his detention. It was not contended and indeed it could not be contended that those grounds are not germane to the purpose of detention under the aforesaid Act.

7. The learned counsel drew our attentio