Shelat, J. - (1.) By an order dated November 22, 1971 under Sec. 3 (1) and (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 the District Magistrate of Nadia ordered the detention of the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was arrested on December 1, 1971 and detained in jail. The detaining authorities thereafter took all the steps and passed all orders under and as prescribed by the Act. No dispute has been raised by the petitioner in respect of any one of them.
(2.) The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner at the time of his arrest stated as follows: "(1) On the night of 30-7-71 at about 20.00 hours you along with your associates entered into the toddi shop of Shri Gopinath Bohara s/o Late Ram Bohara at Gangnapore P. S. Ranaghat District Nadia and stabbed Shri Gopinath Bohara with daggers causing severe bleeding injuries on his person. You also terrorised the local people by exploding bombs. Subsequently, the said Gopinath Bohara succumbed to his injuries at Saktinagar Hospital. Such action created terror and panic in the minds of the local peace-loving people and caused disruption to their normal work. (2) On 31-7-71 at about 21.30 hours at Rameshwar, P. S. Ranaghat, District Nadia, you along with your associates armed with lethal weapons attacked Ajahar Ali Khan s/o Late Kabbar Khan of the said village and killed him by causing severe injuries on his person. You did this with a view to promoting your political ideology. Such action terrorised the local peace loving people who out of fear and panic had to suspend their free-movements and normal work."
(3.) Two contentions challenging the validity of the petitioner's detention were raised before us. The first was that in respect of the two incidents set out in the aforesaid grounds and said to have occurred on the 30th and 31st of July, 1971 the petitioner was actually arrested on August 1, 1971 pursuant to a first information report lodged by the police. The police authorities, thus, having chosen to proceed against him under the ordinary law of the land, petitioner ought to have been tried by the court of law rather than be detained under an extraordinary act such as the Maintenance of Internal Security Act. The second was that the petitioner had nothing to do with either of the two incidents. But even assuming that he had participated in them, neither of the two grounds pertained to public order, but related only to the problem of law and order, and therefore, no detention order could have been validly passed against him in respect of either of them.;