JUDGMENT

FAZAL ALI, J. :—The petitioner assails the order of detention passed against him on August 23, 1973 by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas. A report was sent by the District Magistrate to the Government on August 27, 1973 and the detention was approved by the Government on 30th August, 1973. On September 10, 1973 the detenu made a representation to the Government which was rejected on September 12, 1973. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Advisory Board and after obtaining its opinion the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on November 14, 1973. We might also state that a report to the Central Government was also made immediately after the order of detention was passed.

2. Mr. R. K. Jain appearing for the petitioner as Amicus Curiae has been of such assistance to us and has advanced five contentions before us. In the first place he submitted that there was sufficient delay on the part of the District Magistrate in submitting his report to the Government and the explanation given by him is not convincing. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has explained that he had to pass almost eight orders of detention on the 23rd August and all of 735 them had to be typed out and as 26th August which was a Sunday had intervened, it was not possible for him to send the report to the Government earlier. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the explanation given by the District Magistrate in his affidavit is convincing and satisfactory. In Writ Petn. No. 23 of 1975 (Gopal Mandal v. State of West Bengal decided on 9th April, 1975 = (reported in AIR 1975 SC 1807) an identical explanation was given by the District Magistrate which was upheld by this Court. For this reason, the first contention raised by learned counsel is overruled.

3. It was next argued that the order of the Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not a speaking order and therefore the detention is illegal. This matter appears to be concluded by a decision of this Court in John Martin v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 467 of 1974, D/- 21-1-1975 = (reported in AIR 1975 SC 775) following Hardan Shah s case where a similar argument put forward by this Court was rejected outright. This contention of the learned counsel does not therefore survive.

4. It was next contended that the ground of detention served on him amounted to a single incident and had no causal connection with the disturbance of the public order. The ground served on the petition was as follows :-

"That on 3-8-1973 between 21-10 and 21-20 hrs. you and your associates being armed with daggers boarded a 3rd class compartment of SL 257 Up train of E. Rly. Sealdah Division at Gocharan R. S. and putting the passengers of the compartment to fear of death snatched away a wrist watch and a gold necklace from one Nirmal Chatterjee and his wife in between Gocharan and Surajpur R. Ss. you then decamped with booty from the running train at Suryapur R. S.

Your action caused confusion, panic and disturbed public order there then.

You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."

From a perusal of this we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that this ground has no nexus with the disturbance of public order. It is true that the ground contains a single incident of theft of valuable property from some passenger travelling in a running train and may amount to robbery. But that does not by itself take the case out of the purview of the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. There are two pertinent facts which emerge from the grounds which must be noted. In the first place the allegation is that the petitioner had snatched away a wrist watch and a gold chain after putting the passengers of the compartment to fear of death. Secondly, the theft had taken place at night in a running train in a third class compartment and the effect of it would be to deter peaceful citizens from travelling in trains