- (1.) The petitioner assails the order of detention passed against him on August 23, 1973 by the District Magistrate, 24 Parganas. A report was sent by the District Magistrate to the Government on August 27, 1973 and the detention was approved by the Government on 30th August, 1973. On September 10, 1973 the detenu made a representation to the Government which was rejected on September 12, 1973. Thereafter the matter was referred to the Advisory Board and after obtaining its opinion the order of detention was confirmed by the Government on November 14, 1973. We might also state that a report to the Central Government was also made immediately after the order of detention was passed.
(2.) Mr. R. K. Jain appearing for the petitioner as Amicus Curiae has been of such assistance to us and has advanced five contentions before us. In the first place he submitted that there was sufficient delay on the part of the District Magistrate in submitting his report to the Government and the explanation given by him is not convincing. In the counter affidavit, however, the District Magistrate has explained that he had to pass almost eight orders of detention on the 23rd August and all of them had to be typed out and as 26th August which was a Sunday had intervened, it was not possible for him to send the report to the Government earlier. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the explanation given by the District Magistrate in his affidavit is convincing and satisfactory. In Writ Petn. No. 23 of 1975 (Gopal Mandal v. State of West Bengal decided on 9th April, 1975 = (reported in AIR 1975 SC 1807) an identical explanation was given by the District Magistrate which was upheld by this Court. For this reason, the first contention raised by learned counsel is overruled.
(3.) It was next argued that the order of the Government rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not a speaking order and therefore the detention is illegal. This matter appears to be concluded by a decision of this Court in John Martin v. State of West Bengal, W.P. No. 467 of 1974, D/- 21-1-1975 = (reported in AIR 1975 SC 775) following Hardan Shah's case where a similar argument put forward by this Court was rejected outright. This contention of the learned counsel does not therefore survive.;