Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner is detained by the District Magistrate, Midnapore, by his order dated 29-3-1972. The order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sub-section (1) read with sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) with a view to preventing the petitioner for acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

2. The grounds communicated to the petitioner are:

(1) "on 3-10-1971 at about 02.00 hrs. you along with your associates committed theft in respect of 1,200 feet of overhead aluminium conductor wire worth about Rs.1,000/- from Power Supply line of the West bengal State Electricity Board near Hategeria village under Keshiary P. S. District Midnapore. Due to such act of yours electric supply from Hizli Power Station to Egra remained suspended for 12 hours and a chaos was created.

Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the communty.

(2) On 11-10-71 at about 02.00 hrs., you along with your associates committed theft in respect of 3000 feet of overhead aluminium conductor wire worth about Rs.2,500/- from Hizli Egra Power Supply line of the West Bengal State Electricity Board near Hategeria P. S. Keshiary, District Midnapore. Due to such act of yours, electric supply from Hizli Power Station to Egra remained suspended for 14 hours and a chaos was created.

Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

(3) On 3-11-71 at about 03.35 hrs., you along with your associates made an attempt to cut overhead aluminium conductor wire from Hizli Belda Power Supply line of the West Bengal State Electricity Board at Dasasarisa, P.S. Keshiary, District Midnapore. As soon as your associates touched the electric line, there has been one wpark and your associates fell down from the post when the Police party who was in ambush petrol duty hastened to the place, arrested you and one of your associates with some instrument for cutting wire.

Subsequently, as per your statement police recovered 19 kgs. of overhead aluminium conductor wire from under the ground of the countyard of your associate.

Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

3. The petitioner had made his representation to the Advisory Board but after the same was rejected the State Government, acting on the opinion of the Advisory Board, confirmed the detention order on 3-10-1972. It must be noted that though the detention order itself had been passed on 29-3-1972 the petitioner could not be apprehended and served with the detention order till 29-7-1972 on which day he was also served with the grounds of detention.

4. Mr. Mittal, who appeared as amicus curiae for the petitioner, relied principally on the fact that there has been a delay of about 5 months before the order of detention was passed. He pointed out that there were in all 3 incidents of conductor wire-cutting and while the first 2 occurred in October, 71 the third occurred in November, 1971. Thereafter, it is pointed out, the detention order had been passed 5 months later. It is, therefore, contended that this very delay in passing the order would show that the order was passed not because the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detention was necessary but because he felt that the petitioner deserved to be punished as the police had failed to prove the criminal cases against him. In our opinion, mere delay in making the order is not sufficient to hold that the District Magistrate must not have been satisfied about the necessity of the detention order. The activities of the petitioner were extremely dangerous. The first ground shows that the petitioner along with his associates committed theft in respect of 1200 feet of overhead