Beg, J. - (1.) The petitioner, a citizen of India, has filed this Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order of his detention, dated 24-11-1972, passed under Section 5 clause (a) of Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) It appears that the petitioner was actually arrested on 20-11-1972 and that the detention order was passed subsequently on 24-11-1972, and, on that very date, the petitioner was served with the document containing the sole ground of detention given as follows:- "1. That on 11-10-72 at about 01.55 hrs., you along with your associates, being armed with bombs and other weapons, victimised Wagon No. NR 17393 Ex Bro to KPD attached to running goods train in EC 349 DN near the Booster Substation of Dum Dum Jn. R/S when the train slowed down for traffic restriction and committed theft in respect of tea chests. Train guard RPF party challenged you and your associates when you hurled bombs towards the RPF party. RPF RK Sitaram Rai fired one round in self defence when you and your associates fled away leaving behind three chests of tea at the P. O. Your action caused disruption of train service for a considerable time and affected supplies and services. You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community". After giving what is marked as ground number 1 only, implying thereby that there was no other ground of detention the document proceeds: "You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State Government against the detention order and that such representation shall be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Government of West Bengal and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you have been detained as clearly as possible. Under Section 10 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) your case shall be placed before Advisory Board within thirty days from the date of your detention under the order. You are also informed that under Section 11 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), the Advisory Board shall if you desire to be so heard, hear you in person, and, if you desire to be heard by the Advisory Board, you shall intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government".
(3.) An annexure to the affidavit filed by a Special Secretary in the Home Department of the Govt. of West Bengal, who was the District Magistrate concerned when the impugned detention order was made against the petitioner, is copy of the petitioner's representation addressed to the Government. In the representation as well as in the petition before us, the petitioner asserts that the allegations against him are absolutely antrue. In his application to this Court he state that it is "palpably false and impracticable" to allege that the petitioner, with some associates, committed theft of some tea chests from a running wagon and that he fled when challenged, leaving behind three chests of tea "at the P. O." Be that as it may, it is difficult to understand what is meant by "the P. O." In his representation to the Government, the petitioner had submitted that there was no evidence that he was identified by anybody as a participator in the incident.;