Shelat, J. - (1.) On August 24, 1971, the District Magistrate, Burdwan passed an order of detention against the petitioner under sub-sec. (1) read with sub-sec. (2) of S.3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that it was necessary to do so with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner was arrested on September 5, 1971 and has since then been in jail.
(2.) The grounds of detention served on the petitioner at the time of his arrest read as follows: "1. That you on 31-12-70 at about 19.50 hours with your associates, armed with lethal weapons with a view to promoting the cause of the extremist party to which you belong, went to Chinakuri and surrounded one Sulaxman Singh on the road near Chinakuri Pit No.3 Colliery Hospital while he was returning to his house on a motor cycle from Chinakuri Bazar and stabbed him (Sulaxman Singh) with dagger causing his death. Your act created a general feeling of fear and insecurity and jeopardised the even tempo of life of the community of the locality and thereby disturbed public order. 2. That you on 14-3-71 at about 17.30 hours along with your associates being armed with lethal weapons with a view to promoting the cause of the extremist party to which you belong, surrounded Sri Subhodh Mitra, Loading Inspector, Chinakuri Colliery, on the road near Radhanagar Railway Station, P. S. Kulti, District Burdwan and inflicted multiple injuries on his person by dagger for committing murder, characterising him a police spy. Your act created a general feeling of fear and insecurity and jeopardised the even tempo of life of the community of the locality and thereby disturbed public order". There is no dispute that the relevant authorities took thereafter all the consequential steps as required by the act.
(3.) Mr. Parashar, however, challenged the validity of the order and the petitioner's detention thereunder on four grounds. The first was that the subjective satisfaction, which is the foundation for action under the Act, being that of the District Magistrate, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State should have been made by that officer who alone could depose about such satisfaction and not by the Deputy Secretary, Home (Special) Department of the West Bengal Government. There is, in our view, some force in the contention of Mr. Parashar, for, it would be more appropriate that the authority which passes the order and upon whose satisfaction such an order is founded should make the affidavit-in-reply rather than any other authority who has no knowledge of his own and has therefore, to rely simply on the record of the case. It, however, appears that the State Government has entrusted the entire work of detention cases to a special department to which the records of all the detention cases are sent and therefore finds it more expenditious and convenient to have affidavits filed by the Under Secretary in charge of those cases. Since the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate in the instant case is not directly challenged, nothing would seem to turn on the fact that the affidavit in reply is not by the District Magistrate but by the Under Secretary. However, in cases where such a challenge is made, it would, in our view, be appropriate and satisfactory that the affidavit should be by the detaining authority itself.;