Judgement

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- The petitioner challenges order of his detention of 20-7-72 under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, as being illegal. He was arrested on July 20, 1972, and sent to Midnapore Central Jail. On the same day he was served with the order of detention along with the grounds of his detention, which inter alia, stated thus:

"2. On 26-4-72 between 14.35 hrs. and 14.45 hrs., you along with your associates attacked the box wagon of train No.D/N. 140-78 at through yard, Nimpura near east cabin Home Signal and looted away rice bags from the said wagan. Due to the act of yours the train suffered detention for about half an hour.

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

3. On 28-5-72 at about 18.35 hrs., you along with your associates stopped goods train No.501 Up at KM 119/15 near Ayma P.S. Kharagpur Town, Midnapore by disconnecting hose pipes and looted away huge quantities of brake blocks and pull rods used for the maintenance, construction and operation of railways.

Due to this act of yours, the train suffered detention for about half an hour.

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

2. The petitioner was asked to make a representation to the State Government against his detention order if he so chose and also to intimate if he wanted to be heard by the Advisory Board in person. He was further informed that his case will be placed before the Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of his detention under the order.

3. On October 10, 1972, the State Government placed before the Advisory Board the grounds on which the detention order was made as also the report made by the District Magistrate under sub-s. (3) of S.3 of the said Act. The representation of the petitioner was received by the State Government on October 11, 1972, and after due consideration it was rejected by it on October 13, 1972. It was sent to the Advisory Board on October 24, 1972. On October 30, 1972, the Advisory Board after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner, submitted is report to the State Government stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The detention order was confirmed by the State Government on November 3, 1972.

4. It will be seen that the requirements of law regarding the time schedule have been fully complied with and there is no defect in the detention proceedings on that score. The District Magistrate s affidavit stated that he had passed the detention order after being bona fide satisfied from the materials on record as stated in the grounds of detention that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it was necessary to detain him under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. He further stated that the grounds furnished to the detenu were the only grounds on which he based his satisfaction for making the said detention order though other materials were also placed before him. In view of this statement that "other materials were also placed before him" but his satisfaction was based merely on the grounds stated in the detention order, we wanted to be satisfied that those materials were not such as would have in any manner influenced the District Magistrate in arriving at a subjective satisfaction.

5. It was contended by Mr. Mukerjee on behalf of the State Government that this Court ought not look into the record for satisfying itself as to whether the District Magistrate could have arrived at the conclusion when he says he has arrived at that satisfaction only on the grounds mentioned in the detention order. We do not think that this would be a correct approach. Where the liberty of a subject is involved and he has been detained without trial, under a law made pursuant to Art. 22 which pr