Chandrachud, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the validity of an order of detention dated May 5, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas. On the same day that the order was passed, the petitioner was arrested in pursuance of detention order and the grounds were served on him. The detention was reported to the State Government on May 9, it was approved by the State Government on May 14 and on the same day a report in behalf of the petitioner's detention was submitted to the Central Government. The petitioner's representation was received by the State Government on May 29, it was considered on June 1 and on the very next day the matter was placed before the Advisory Board. The Board gave its decision on June 28 and the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on July 30. The communication in regard to the confirmation of the detention order was received by the petitioner on August. 14.
(2.) The order of detention was passed under Section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 on the ground that the petitioner was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The order is based on the allegation that on April, 22, 1973 the petitioner, along with his associates, had cut the over-head return conductor wire in between two railway stations on the Sealdah-Diamond Harbour Section of the Eastern Railway and had committed theft of the wire causing complete dislocation of train services in the particular section.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the detaining authority has displayed utter callousness in regard to the petitioner's detention and has approached the duties imposed on him by law in a casual manner. This argument is founded on the following facts: (1) Though the order of detention is based on one ground only, the letter of the District Magistrate communicating to the petitioner the particulars contain a statement that the petitioner was being detained on the "grounds" that he was acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and service essential to the community, as evidenced by the particulars .... taken separately and collectively; (2) though the order of detention is passed by the District Magistrate, the affidavit in answer to the petition has been filed by an officer of the rank only of a Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Government of West Bengal; (3) the order of confirmation does not mention the period for which the petitioner was to be kept under detention; (4) the order of detention is based on a solitary ground comprising a stray incident, and (5) the order of confirmation passed by the State Government was not communicated to the petitioner within a reasonable time.;