Mitter, J. - (1.) The petitioner who was detained in pursuance of an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (26 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has presented this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution. He states therein that the detention order originating from the District Magistrate of Howrah is baseless, mala fide and motivated, that he was never involved in any kind of violent or anti-social activities, that he is a first fireman of the South Eastern Railway and by his detention irreparable prejudice will be caused to himself and members of his family. He states further that he had gone to the Advisory Board on November 17, 1971 and that his detention was confirmed and communicated to him on December 8,1971. His grievance is that no first information was lodged against him as was necessary in the circumstances of the case and his detention is not warranted by law.
(2.) From the affidavit affirmed by the District Magistrate of Howrah in opposition to the petition the following facts emerge:- (1) The order was made against the petitioner on 24th August 1971 in exercise of the Magistrate's power conferred by sub-s. (1) read with sub-s. (2) of S. 3 of the Act with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (2) The grounds for the order of detention bearing the same date show that on 23rd May 1971 at about 2.15 a.m. the petitioner along with some associates armed with swords, daggers etc. had cut down and stolen away 40 meters of copper contact wire from the head traction wires from K. M. Post No. 9/31 x to 10/1x in the Up line in between Mourigram and Andul railway stations causing disruption in train services on the Howrah Khagapur section and that he had acted in a similar manner in company with some associates being similarly armed on the night of 7th June 1971 at about 2 a.m. and had cut down copper contact wire from K. M. Post Nos. 9/25and 9/27 on the Up Line in between Santragachi and Mourigram railway stations on the Howrah Khargapur section and his acts were considered prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (3) On August 24 1971 the District Magistrate had reported to the State Government about the passing of the detention order together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars bearing on the same. The said report and particulars were considered by the State Government and on September 4, 1971 the detention order was approved by the State Government under sub-s. (3) of S. 3 of the Act. (4) Soon after the passing of the order of detention the petitioner was found to be absconding and could be arrested only on 9th September 1971 when he was served with the order of detention and the grounds thereof. He was also informed that he could make a representation to the State Government against his detention order and that his case would be placed before the Advisory Board within 30 days from the date of the detention order. (5) On September 4, 1971 the State Government submitted a report to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of S. 3 of the Act together with the grounds of detention and other particulars. (6) On 7th October 1971 a representation from the detenu petitioner was received in the Home Department (Special Section) of the State Government forwarded by the Superintendent of the Dum Dum Central Jail. (7) On 8th October 1971 the case of the detenu petitioner was placed before the Advisory Board. (8) On November 17, 1971 the representation of the petitioner was considered by the State Government. The State Government rejected it by an order of the same date. (9) On November 17, 1971 the Advisory Board after consideration of the materials placed before it and the said representation and after giving a personal hearing to the detenu petitioner submitted its report to the State Government to the effect that there was sufficient cause for the detention. (10) By an order dated November 26, 1971 the State Government in exercise of its powers under sub-s. (1) of S. 12 of the Act confirmed the order of detention. (11) The confirmation of the order was communicated by the State Government to the detenu petitioner by letter dated December, 7, 1971.
(3.) A copy of the representation of the petitioner to the Advisory Board is one of the annexures to the counter affidavit. The case made by him therein was that the allegations about the removal of overhead traction wire were not true, that in any event they also disclosed commission of the offences of theft which are cognizable offences and any such incident, if true in fact, should have incident, if true in fact, should have been reported to the police under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the circumstances of the case the grounds of detention notified in the order made against him were not tenable under the law.;