Judgment

BHAGWATI J.:- The petitioner in this petition seeks a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his detention under an order made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order of detention was made on 10th July, 1973 on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. Pursuant to the order of detention the petitioner was arrested on 24th August, 1973 and immediately on his arrest he was served with the grounds of detention. There were two incidents referred to in the grounds of detention as forming the basis for arriving at the subjective satisfaction on the part of the District Magistrate and they were as follows:

"1. On 23-1-1973 at about 03.00 furs. you along with your associates (i) Michael Antony, son of M. Danial alias Ram Murti of Purniatalao, P. S. Hirapur, District Burdwan (ii) Dhiren Antony son of Michael Pitter of Purniatalao, P. S. Hirapur, Dist. Burdwan, and others committed theft in respect of two spans of electric line, 240 feet in length from pole Nos. 7 to 9 in Street No. 23 of Chittaranjan township P. S. Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan and thereby clamped down darkness over the entire area causing inconvenience and hardship to the people in general living in that area, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.

2. On 22-2-1973 at about 04.00 furs. you along with your associates (i) Michael Antony, son of M. Danial alias Ram Murti of Purniatalao, P. S. Hirapur, Dist. Burdwan (ii) Dhiran Antony, son of Michael Pitter of Purniatalao, P. S. Hirapur, Dist. Burdwan and others committed theft in respect of 2 electric conductors, 200 feet long from pole Nos. 1 & 2 at Cross Road No; 3, Sunset Avenue, Chittaranjan Township, P. S. Chittaranjan, Dist. Burdwan and thereby clamped down darkness in the entire area causing much inconvenience and hardship to the people in general lining in that area, which is prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community."

Meanwhile the District Magistrate reported the fact of the making of the order of detention to the State Government and the order of detention was then approved by the State Government by an order dated 21st July, 1973. The State Government also reported the fact of approval of the order of detention to the Central Government within seven days from the date of the order of approval. The State Government thereafter placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board on 20th September, 1973. On 25th September, 1973 the representation of the petitioner against the order of detention was received by the State Government and after due and proper consideration the State Government rejected it by an order dated 29th September, 1973. The representation was then forwarded by the State Government to the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board, after considering the case of the petitioner and taking into account the representation received from him, made a report to the State Government on 23rd October, 1973 stating that in its opinion there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. The State Government thereafter confirmed the order of detention by an order dated 1st November, 1973.

2. There were several contentions urged by Mr. R. K. Jain, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner amicus curiae against the validity of the order of detention and we shall deal with them in the order in, which they were urged. But before we do so, we may point out that there was one contention sought to be raised by Mr. R. K. Jain on behalf of the petitioner which we did not allow to be urged. That was that the power conferred by Section 13 of the Act to detain a person for a period of twelve months or until the cessation of