BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad on the 11th April, 1974, in exercise of power conferred by Sub -section (1) read with Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. By the said order the petitioner detenu was directed to be detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,
(2.) THE grounds relied upon in support of such detention, which were served on the petitioner, read as follows; - 1. On 20 -1 -1974 noon at 12.00 hrs. you called Shrimati Radharani Haider w/o. Shri Manindra Haider of godown colony, P. S. Raghunathganj to your house on a false plea, wrongfully confined her and tried to outrage her modesty by force as a result she sustained injuries. This daring and violent act to outrage the modesty of a woman in broad daylight created panic and consternation among the people of the locality and the current flow of life of the community was greatly disturbed. In consequence of your said activity public order was disturbed in the area and thus it attracts Section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). 2. On 21 -1 -1974 morning at about 07.30 hrs. you called Shrimati Mineza Khatoon daughter of Sahash Molla of Omarpur, P. S. Raghunathganj to your house wrongfully confined her and tried to outrage her modesty by force. This daring and violent act to outrage modesty of a girl in broad daylight created panic and alarm among the people of the locality and the current flow of life of the community was greatly disturbed. In consequence of your activity public order was disturbed in the locality and thus it attracts Section 3 (i) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971). Mr. Dipak Sengupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made twofold submissions. Firstly he submits that the petitioner has challenged the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and stated that the allegation contained in the said grounds are false and mala fide having no basis in the fact. The petitioner had further . stated that the allegation contained in the said grounds are non -existent so far as the petitioner is concerned. It was further alleged that the petitioner did not act nor did he commit any offence as alleged. It was further alleged that the police had mala fide procured the instant order of detention from the detaining authority by putting up false reports and materials before him. In this connection our attention was drawn to paragraphs 7, 10, 14, 15 and 16 of the petition. There is no return to this rule and accordingly such statement should be accepted and it is to be held that such allegation so far as the petitioner is concerned is baseless and mala fide. Secondly he submits that incidents alleged relate to law and order and not public order.
(3.) WE are constrained to accept the submission of Mr. Sengupta that the grounds are baseless and mala fide. In respect of these two grounds the petitioner has stated that the grounds are false and mala fide having no basis in fact. -He has further stated that the allegations contained in the said ground are non -existent so far as the petitioner is concerned. It is also stated that the petitioner did not act nor did he commit any offence as alleged. There is no denial of the same. No affidavit has been affirmed and filed on behalf of the detaining authority though this case has been appearing in the daily list for quite some time. It is now well established that when an allegation is made in the petition challenging the subjective satisfaction or alleging that the grounds are baseless or setting up an alibi or when mala fide is alleged, then the detaining authority must file an affidavit dealing with the same.;