- (1.) This is a petition by Durga Pada Ghosh under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus on the ground that the order of detention made against him under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is void and unconstitutional.
(2.) The detention order in this case was made by the District Magistrate, Burdwan on December 10, 1971 under sub-ss. (1) and (2) of S. 3 of the Act. The unlawful activities in which the petitioner was alleged to have been indulging are stated in the order of detention as follows: "1. On 15-9-71 at about 1 p.m. you with your associates viz. Sudhir Dey and others at the point of dagger and exploding bombs snatched away Rupees 1900/- from Shri 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 insecure 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 Sudhir Dey 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 terrorized and felt hesitant to come on the road. This adversely affected the even tempo of life of the people of the locality." On the same day i.e., December 10, 1972 the District Magistrate reported this fact to the State Government as required by sub-s. (3) of S. 3. Pursuant to this order of detention the petitioner was arrested on December 15, 1971 and on the same day the grounds of detention were served on him. The detention order was approved by the State Government on December 16, 1971 and on the same day this fact was reported to the Central Government as required by sub-s. (4) of S. 3. On January 4, 1972 the petitioner's representation was received by the State Government. The petitioner's case was placed before the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act on January 7, 1972. This was done in compliance with Section 10 of the Act. The petitioner's representation was considered by the State Government on February 12, 1972. The Advisory Board gave its decision on February 16, 1972 and the detention order was confirmed by the State Government on March 17, 1972. This order was communicated to the petitioner on March 8, 1972.
(3.) Though the petitioner by means of his application dated July 15, 1972 desired to raise some additional grounds challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, at the time of arguments this challenge was not pressed before us. The only ground on which emphasis was laid by Shri Ram Panjwani, the learned advocate appearing as amicus curiae, was that the representation made by the petitioner was considered by the State Government after inordinate delay and, therefore, his detention must be considered to have become illegal entitling the petitioner to be released forthwith. The delay contended to be inordinate was between January 4, 1972, the date of receipt of the petitioner's representation, and February 12, 1972, when the representation was considered by the State Government.;