- (1.) By his order, dated October 26, 1971, the District Magistrate, Burdwan directed the detention of the Petitioner under sub-sec. (1) read with sub-sec. (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In pursuance of the said order the petitioner was arrested on November, 1, 1971 and detained in Burdwan Jail.
(2.) The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest ran as follows : "(1) That on 12-7-1971 at about 10.45 hours you along with your associates viz. (1) Madan Bouri alias Balmiki, son of late Chalu Bouri alias Balmiki of Santa, P. S. Nirapur, District Burdwan, (2) Nanik Bouri, son of Tara Pada Bouri of Nabaghanty, P. S. Birapur, District Burdwan, (3) Rabindra Nath Sarkar alias Rabi son of Narendra Nath Sarkar of New Town Road No. 7 Quarter No. 13/3, P. S. Hirapur, District Burdwan, being armed with lethal weapons surrounded one Chottanlal, son of Ram Brich of Burnpur at Narsinghbandh, P. S. Hirapur, District Burdwan while he was returning to Burnpur, Chottan Lall somehow managed to escape from your clutches. You and your associates attempted to do away with the life of Chottan Lall by exploding bombs and firing from pipe guns, suspecing him as a police informer. Your act threw out of gear the normal life stream of the community of the locality in and around Narsinghbandh, P. S. Hirapur, District Burdwan (2) That on 30-7-71 at about 07.45 hours you along with your associates viz. (1) Ganga Malla, (2) Mesua Show, both Homeless, temporarily residing at Santadangal, P. S. Hirapur and others, being armed with lethal weapons entered into the hotel of Shri Vivekananda Sha, son of late Khusru Sha of Burnpur Road, P. S. Hirapur and attacked Shri Sha with bombs, dagger etc. with a view to do away with his life when Shri Sha with the help of public was able to arrest you with two bombs in your possession while your other associates fled away. You wanted to do away with the life of Vivekananda Sha when he demanded back money from you. As a result of your act a general sense of insecurity was generated in the locality and the people were so much panic-stricken that they could not follow their normal avocations of life for a number of days after the incident." Mr. Markendeya questioned the validity of the said order on three grounds. The first ground urged by him was that there was undue delay in the consideration of the petitioner's representation by the State Government which rendered the continuation of the petitioner's detention contrary to Art. 22 (5) of the Constitution. The facts in this connection are that the Government received the representation on November 29, 1971 but did not consider and dispose it of until December 30, 1971. There was, therefore, delay of about 30 days in dealing with the petitioner's representation. The return filed on behalf of the Government states that the reasons for delay were (1) influx of refugees in West Bengal, (2) the Indo-Pakistan war, and (3) sudden spurt of anti-social activities by political extremists taking advantage of the extraordinary situation arising as a result of the influx of refugees and then the war. These reason have been considered by us in some of the petitions earlier heard by us and were held valid. There being thus a satisfactory explanation, it is not possible to hold that there was by the Government such undue delay as would invalidate the petitioner's detention.
(3.) The second ground urged by counsel was that the petitioner is a Hindi-speaking person, that although a translation of the grounds was served upon him, it is not known in what language the grounds were translated. If such language was other than Hindi, it was futile to serve such a translation. The petitioner, therefore, would be unable to understand the grounds and would not be able to make an effective representation against his detention. We have ascertained from the files produced by counsel for the State that the translation served on the petitioner was in Hindi and therefore the petitioner can have no grievance on that score.;