An externment order under Section 21 of the West Bengal Security Act, 1950 must specify the nature of the subversive act that the person served with the order is alleged to be doing. Section 38 of the Act, which allowed the State Government to delegate its powers to any officer or authority subordinate to it, was ultra vires the Constitution because it did not place any restrictions on the rank, status, knowledge, or experience of the officer or authority to whom the powers could be delegated.

Harries, C. J. :- This is a rule issued by the Court calling upon the District Magistrate of West Dinajpur to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition should not issue with respect to an order of externment made by the said District Magistrate.

2. The matter first came before Sinha J. who referred the hearing of the petition to a Bench in view of the importance of the questions raised. The petition has accordingly been heard by this Bench.

3. On 14-6-1950, Sri R. Banerji, District Magistrate of West Dinajpur made the following order:

"Whereas I am satisfied that the person known as Sri Khagendra Nath De alias Battu, son of late Surendra Nath De of Rangpur (Pak.) and of Balurghat is doing a subversive act :

Now, therefore, with a view to preventing the said person from doing such Act, in exercise of the power conferred by cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of S. 21, West Bengal Security Act 1950 (West Bengal Act xix [19] of 1950), which i have been empowered to exercise under Government order No. 3501 - H. S., dated 24-4-1948, read with S. 40 of the said Act, i hereby direct

(1) that the said parson shall not, at any time after 24 hours of service of this order, be in any place in this district of West Dinajpur."

4. On 22-6-1940 the District Magistrate modified this order and permitted Khagendra Nath De to remain in the district for 72 hours before being compelled to leave.

5. The petitioner moved this Court claiming that this order was on the face of it an order not in accordance with the Act. Further the petitioner claimed that the Act under which the order was made was ultra vires the Constitution and therefore the order was invalid. We were asked to make an order compelling the District Magistrate to refrain from enforcing the order which he had made.

6. The petitioner Khagendra Nath De was a refugee from East Bengal who had come to the district of West Dinajpur. It is said in the petition that he was a recognised relief and social worker in the district. How long he had been in West Dinajpur is not stated. It will be seen that the order externing him merely states that the petitioner was doing a subversive act, but there is no elaboration and there is nothing on the face of the order to suggest what that subversive act was. On receipt of the order as modified, the petitioner was compelled to leave the district though the order on the face of it gave him no clue as to why it had been made. 7. The order was made under S. 21, West Bengal Security Act, 1950, which provides that the State Government it satisfied with respect to any particular person that he is doing or is about to do or is likely to do any subversive Act, may, with a view to preventing him from doing such Act, make an externment order. The term "subversive Act" is defined in S. 2 (9) of the Act and the term covers a very large number of activities. For example, a person endangering communal harmony or illegally acquiring corrosive substances or liquids or furthering the activities of goondas, or prejudicing the recruiting of persons in the Police force or the fire brigade is guilty of a subversive act. The phrase covers, as I have said, a multitude of activities. Therefore merely stating in an order that the person served with the order was doing a subversive act would convey little or nothing at all to the person so served.

8. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the order made is not an order under the Act at all. The argument is that the Act contemplates that the order should recite the satisfaction of the Government that the person served with the order was doing or about to do or likely to do one or more of the acts mentioned in S. 2 (9) of the Act. Unless the nature of the act is stated in the order it is urged that the order cannot be regarded as a proper order made under the Act.

9. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the State that S. 21 does not require the person making the order to particularise and that an order merely