A.K. Sen, J. - (1.)In this Rule the detenu -Petitioner Roshan Ali Miyan is disputing the validity of his present detention under an order dated December 1, 1971, passed by the District Magistrate, Cooch - Behar, in exercise of his powers under Sec. 3(1) read with Sec. 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The object of detention as recited in the order of detention is in the following terms:
Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Roshan Ali Miyan, son of late Kazibulla Miyan of Bara Khali -shamari, P.S. Mathabhanga, and of Changrakuthi Khalishamari, P.S. Sitalkuchi, Dist. Cooch Behar, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it is necessary so to do....

(2.)Though the object recited in this order is maintenance of public order, the ground served on the detenu under Sec. 8(1) of the said Act on the very same day recited in the preamble as follows ;
You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of the power conferred by Sub -section (1) read with Sub -section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State as evidenced by the particulars given below....

The particulars so set out constitute a single ground which reads as follows:

(1) You visited Hatibandha, Dist. Rangpur, East Bengal, in the middle of August 1971 and contacted Pakistan Army through one Pak Army agent and communicated defence position of India which was immediately followed by heavy shelling by Pak Army on village Cochhtala, P.S. Sitalkuchi, on 18 -8 -71 resulting in death of two Indian nationals and injuries to many.

(3.)Thus it is obvious that there is a patent discrepancy as to the object of detention between the order and the ground served on the detenu -Petitioner on the very same day. A point has been raised by Mr. Samajdar who is appearing on behalf of the Petitioner to the effect that on the patent discrepancy between the order and the ground as to the object of detention which led the detaining authority to exercise his powers under the Act, the detention cannot be held to be in accordance with law. According to Mr. Samajdar, it is not so because of two reasons. In the first place, the ground disclosed in the ground of detention being one relevant to the security of the State is irrelevant to the object specified in the order, namely, maintenance of public order. Secondly, it is suggested by Mr. Samajdar that such discrepancy clearly establishes the fact that the detaining authority was not applying his mind to the facts and circumstances in exercising his powers as exercised in the present case.