S.K. Bhattacharyya, J. - (1.) This application by the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. The detenu was taken into custody on and from March 4, 1973, under an order passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, in exercise of the powers vested in him by Sub -section (1), read with Sub -section (2) of Sec. 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, to be hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and was served with the ground of detention containing one ground. The ground runs as follows: That at about 10 p.m. on 8.8.1973, the detenu along with Ranadhar Ray Chowdhury and some other associates armed with dao, bhojali and other lethal weapons attacked the Railway employee Kalipada Kar in New Jalpaiguri Central Colony, P.S. Rajgunj, dist. Jalpaiguri, with a view to murder him. The detenu assaulted Sri Kar seriously on his head and different parts of his body. When some people attracted by the cries of the victim collected at the place the detenu and his associates left the place. The detenu wanted to murder Sri Kar as he opposed the loco employees' strike organised by the detenu and the peo pie of his party. As a result of the detenu's activity there was panic in the area and the loyal loco employees, who wanted to join their duties, in spite of strike, became panicky and were scared. A large number of such loco employees not only refrained from joining their duties but they also did not dare to come out of their houses after dusk. As a result of the activity of the detenu, people of the locality were scared and they were afraid to come out of their houses or to follow their normal avocation of life and widespread Police protection had to be taken in order to restore the normal condition.
(2.) Mr. A.P. Chatterjee, learned Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rabi Lal Maitra, has appeared for the Petitioner and has challenged the satisfaction of the detaining authority as invalid and contended that the detention has ceased to be preventive and has become punitive as the objective condition on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction was arrived at, has ceased to subsist. In the next place, Mr. Chatterjee contended that the representation of the detenu in the instant case was not considered by the State Government expeditiously.
(3.) Mr. Biman Kanti Bose, learned Advocate, appeared for the State and opposed the Rule. An affidavit -in -opposition was also affirmed by the detaining authority. Mr. D.P. Chowdhury, learned Advocate, assisted the Court as amicus curia in this matter and the Court is indebted to him for the valuable assistance received.;