- (1.) In this case, we made a short Order on September 1, 1972 allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the detention order in respect of the petitioner Sudhir Dey and also directing that he be set at liberty forthwith. We now proceed to give reasons for allowing the Writ Petition.
(2.) From the Writ Petition and the counter filed on behalf of the Respondent State, it is clear that the District Magistrate of Burdwan passed the order for the petitioner's detention on 8-12-1971 "with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order". This order was made in exercise of the powers conferred on the district Magistrate by sub-sec. (1) read with sub-section (2) of S. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act No. 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). The grounds of detention on the basis of which the impugned order was passed are as under: "1. On 15-9-71 at about 1 P.M. you with your associates viz: Durgapada Ghosh and others at the point of dagger and exploding bombs snatched away Rs. 1900/- from Sri Krishna Bahadur and Shyamapada Chakraborty of Raj Collegiate School on the road in front of the branch office of the State Bank of India, situated at Burdwan University. By such act in broad day light you created panic and terror and the peaceful citizens of the area felt insecured to come out on the road and their even tempo of life was adversely affected. 2. On 8-11-71 at about 08.45 hrs. you with your associates Durgapada Ghosh and others at the point of dagger snatched away Rs. 2100/- on the road in front of Municipal office from Tapan Kundu of Borhat. This created a panic in the locality and the peaceful citizens were terrorised and felt hesitant to come on the road. This adversely affected the even tempo of life of the people of the locality."
(3.) These two grounds were considered by the District Magistrate to be separately and collectively sufficient to satisfy him that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The petitioner made a representation to the Government against the order of his detention. This representation was received by the Government on or about January 4, 1972 in its Home Department (Special Section). The said representation was considered and rejected by the State Government on February 17, 1972. The reason for this delay is stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit which reads as: "12. In this connection I further state that the said representation of the detenu petitioner could not be considered by the State Government earlier, due to sudden increase in volume of detention cases under Maintenance of Internal Security Act. Due to aforesaid reason there was great pressure of work and movement of the files were very much delayed and the records of the office were not regularly available. It appears that there was about 43 days delay in considering the said representation of the petitioner by the State Government. I further state that the delay was unintentional and was for reasons beyond control of the State Government and I submit that in these circumstances delay may be condoned by this Honourable Court.";