Dua, J. - (1.) Kala Chand Saran has sent through Dum Dum Central Jail an application complaining against his detention under S.3, sub-s. (1) read with sub-s. (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 25 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) and praying for his release. Though no provision of law is mentioned in the application it is obviously intended to be under Article 32 of the Constitution. The detention order, according to the return was passed by the District Magistrate, Midnapore on December 24, 1971 and the detenu was arrested pursuant to that order on December 29, 1971. The grounds of detention were served on the detenu at the time of his arrest. On December 30, 1971 the necessary report was made to the State Government and the order of detention was approved by that Government on January 4, 1972. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on January 10, 1972 and was considered by it on February 19, 1972. His case was placed before the Advisory Board on January 20, 1972 and the Advisory Board gave its decision on February 22, 1972. The State Government confirmed the order on March 8, 1972 and on the same day it was communicated to the detenu petitioner.
(2.) The only point raised before us by Mrs. Udayaratnam, the learned advocate appearing as amicus curiae in support of the petition is that the State Government did not consider the detenu-petitioner's representation as expeditiously as possible and took nearly one month and nine days to do so.
(3.) Prima facie the period between January 10, 1972 and February 19, 1972 seems to us to be unduly long and this inordinate delay requires satisfactory explanation by the State Government. Para 7 of the counter-affidavit sworn by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal on July 8, 1972 contains the explanation for the delay. It is averred therein: ".......that the said representation of the detenu-petitioner could not be considered earlier by the State Government as due to various movements launched by the employees sometime back there had been considerable increase in pending matters. Further due to sudden increase in volume of work due to increased number of detention cases under Maintenance of Internal Security Act during that period there was great pressure of work causing delay in dealing with the files. In this case there was a delay of about 40 days in considering the representation of the petitioner. I further state that the said delay was unintentional and was caused due to reasons beyond the control of the State Government.;