Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) The writ petition who has moved for his release from jail was detained by an order of the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, under Section 3 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The grounds of detention communicated under Section 8 (1) of the Act read thus:"That on 1-8-1972 at about 12-30 hrs, you and your associates committed theft in respect of signal materials from SPH type location box No.513 which is situated in between UP main and UP OCR line at Dum Dum Junction North Yard (near S.S.P.) and 2 Nos. feed and transformer from the junction box near Signal No.35 on the said place. The value of the stolen property is valued at Rs.600/-. Your action caused disruption of train service for a considerable time affecting supplies and services. You have thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community".
(2.) In contrast to this sole episode on the basis of which the detention order - as its recital runs - is based, we have the affidavit of the District Magistrate which states: "I further state that it appears from the Records that detenu-petitioner is one of the notorious stealers of Railway Stores mainly operating in Dum Dum Railway yard. It appears that on 1-8-1972 the petitioner along with his associates committed theft in respect of signal materials from the location box No.513 between Up-main and Up C.C.R. line at Dum Dum Junction North Yard and also removed the materials from Junction Box at the foot at the signal No.33 of the said yard and in consequence of the said thefts the signals became inactive and thereby smooth running of train services were seriously disturbed. The aforesaid activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community and so he was detained under the said Act".
(3.) It is apparent from this averment that the District Magistrate has derived his subjective satisfaction from the circumstances that the detenu is a "notorious stealer of railway stores" operating in Dum Dum Railway yard. If this be true, the key question arises whether the constitutional safeguards in Article 22 (5) translated into sec. 8 of the M.I.S.A. has been violated in that a material circumstance of bio-data which has influenced the authority, and regarding which the affected party had a right to make a representation, had in fact not been transmitted. It is obligatory that the basic facts operating to generate subjective satisfaction must be furnished to the detenu if the constitutional limitation on deprivation of freedom is not to be rendered a rope of sand. In this context counsel cited two decisions of this Court (Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal, W.P. Nos. 1679 etc. of 1973 D/- 1-2-1974 = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 679) and Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 1456 of 1973, D/- 8-2-1974, reported in AIR 1974 SC 806)). Counsel contended that the ratio to these cases applied to the present instance of detention and the detenu was, therefore, entitled to be enlarged. In W.P. Nos. 1679 etc. of 1973, D/- 1-2-1974 = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 679), Sarkaria, J., observed: In the counter-affidavit, the Deputy Secretary has inter alia stated that the petitioner is a 'veteran copper wire stealer" and there were "reliable information" before the District Magistrate about his anti-social activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. "Veteran copper wire stealer" implies a long course of repetitive thievery of copper-wire. No one is born a knave; it takes time for one to become so. It is manifest that but for these "reliable information" showing that the detenu was repeatedly and habitually stealing copper wire, the District Magistrate might not have passed the detention order in question. Those reliable information" were withheld. No privilege under clause (6) of Article 22 has been claimed in respect of them. Even the main ground viz., that the petitioner is a "veteran copper wire stealer" was not, as such, communicated to the detenu. The ground intimated was that "you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the Maintenance of Supplies and Services essential to the community". Only one solitary instance of the recovery of stolen copper-wire from the petitioner's house on 3-7-1972 was conveyed to the detenu. ********** From what has been said above, it is clear as day light that all material particulars of the ground of detention which were necessary to enable the detenu to make an effective representation, were not communicated to him. The impugned order of detention is thus violative of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and is liable to be quashed on that score alone.";