Judgment

BHAGWATI, J.: - The District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, by an order dated 29th December, 1973 made under sub-section (1) read with subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 directed that the petitioner be detained as he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to detain him. The fact of the making of the order of detention was reported by the District Magistrate to the State Government on 2nd January, 1974 and the State Government. by an order dated 8th January, 1974, approved the order of detention. Pursuant to the order of detention, the petitioner was arrested on 18th January, 1974 and immediately on his arrest he was served with the grounds on which the order of detention was made. The grounds of detention referred only to one incident as forming the basis of arriving at the subjective satisfaction as regards the necessity for detention of the petitioner and that incident was in the following terms:

"On the night of 25/26-6-73 at about 00.01 hrs. you along with your associates being armed with lethal weapons including fire arms raided the house of Ananta Kayal of Naitala under Diamond Harbour P. S. and looted away cash, ornaments etc. At the time of operation you fired from your fire arms indiscriminately disregarding human lives and their safety. As a result, the house owner Ananta Kayal and his close door neighbour Ajit Kayal sustained grievous gun shot injuries on their persons. Subsequently both of them expired in Diamond Harbour Hospital. You also brutally assaulted some of the inmates of the house of occurrence. Your action created such panic in the locality and the local people felt a sense of insecurity. . Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

The petitioner made a representation against the order of detention on 29th January, 1974 but it was considered and rejected by the State Government on 31st January, 1974. The State Government thereafter submitted the case of the Petitioner to the Advisory Board along with his representation and the Advisory Board. after hearing the petitioner and taking into account the representation made by him, made a report to the State Government on 6th March, 1974 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government accordingly passed an order dated 14th March, 1974 confirming the detention of the petitioner. This detention is challenged by the petitioner in the present petition which has been submitted from jail.

2. The first contention urged by Mr. Mukhoty, learned counsel appearing amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, was that the solitary incident set out- in the grounds of detention was so remote from the date of the order of detention - in fact there was a time lag of about six months - that the District Magistrate could not possibly have arrived at his subjective satisfaction on the basis of that incident. The requirement of proximity, said Mr. Mukhoty, was not satisfied and the subjective satisfaction said to ave been reached by the District Magistrate could not be regarded as real or genuine. Now it is true, as pointed out by this Court in Golam Hussain v. Commr. of Police, Calcutta, (1974) 4 SCC 530 that "there must be a live link between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority and the purpose of detention, namely, inhibition of prejudicial activity of the species specified in the statute. This credible chain is snapped if there is too long and unexplained an interval between the offending acts and the order of detention. Such is the ratio of proximity in Lakshman Khatik v. State of West Bengal, (1974) 4 SCC 1 1974 Cri LJ 936). No authority, acting rationally, can be satisfied, subjectively or otherwise, of future mischief merely because long ago the detenu had done something evil. To rule otherwise