- (1.) This Rule was issued on a father's application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure disputing the validity of detention of the detenu Mahadev Chandra De. Such detention is at present under an order dated September 13, 1971 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta in exercise of his powers under section 3(1) read with section 3(2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Central Act). An important question of law, as to whether a person in respect of whom an order of detention under section 3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act) had failed for not confirmation within three months from the date of detention can be subjected to a fresh detention under the Central Act on the same grounds, falls for determination.
(2.) Facts relevant to the issue are not in dispute. The detenu was first put to preventive detention on January 28, 1971 under Section 3 of the State Act and was lodged in the Presidency Jail, Grounds of detention were served on him on February 1, 1971. The order of detention, however, was not confirmed within three months from the date of his detention and accordingly this Court on September 10, 1971 held the continued detention of the detenu to be not in accordance with law. In the meantime, however, the Central Act came into force on July 2, 1971 and the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta passed a fresh order of detention in respect of the detenu this time under the provisions of section 3 of the Central Act. An identical set of grounds as in respect of detention under the State Act was served on the detenu. In the present application by the father it is the later order under the Central Act and the consequent detention of the detenu which are being challenged. Mr. Acharya appearing in support of this Rule was raised only one point viz., the Commissioner of Police had no legal authority to pass a fresh order of detention in respect of the detenu under the Central Act on the failure of his earlier detention under the State Act. Reliance is placed on the provisions of section 14(2) of the State Act. Section 14 is on following terms: ?(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 22 of the Bengal General Clauses Act, 1899, a detention order may at any time be revoked or modified by the State Government notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer specified in sub-section of section 3. (2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3 against the same person in any case where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry on which the State Government or an officer specified in sub-section (3) of section 3, as the case may be is satisfied that such an order should be made.? Reliance is also placed on two unreported decisions of this Court in the cases of (1) Rabindranath De v. The State (Criminal Misc. Case No.1180 of 1971 disposed of on February 15, 1972) and (2) Debabrata Das v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta (Criminal Misc. Case No.565 of 1971 disposed of on January 24, 1972).
(3.) We have had the assistance of the learned Advocate-General on the point raised by Mr. Acharya. According to the learned Advocate-General there is no bar under the Constitution or otherwise except as in the statute to successive orders of detention on same grounds. Further according to him the bar imposed by section 14(2) of the State Act does not extend to limit the exercise of powers of detention under any statute other than State Act itself and as such the detention in the present case under the provisions of the Central Act cannot be condemned as unauthorized.;