Basak, J. - (1.) This application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is directed against the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, the respondent no.2 herein, on the 2nd of December 1974 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)(a)(ii) red with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The said order was passed with a view to preventing the detenu, Shyamal Nandi, from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State. The incidents relied upon the grounds of detention served on the detenu are as follows: "(1) You being a leader of the Revolutionary Communist Unity Centre (Marxist-Leninist), now Communist Unity Centre (Marxist-Leninist) in West Bengal along with others including Biswanath Mukharji of Khardah attended a secret meeting of the said party held in a house at Seal's Garden Lane, Calcutta on 16.9.74 wherein you along with other participants of the meeting including the said Biswanath Mukharji decided to organise the people, particularly, the peasants, to start armed guerrilla action in West Bengal, particularly in rural area, with the avowed object of capturing the State power by overthrowing the present lawfully established Government in the State. (11) You were arrested on 12.10.1974 from your residence at 23, Paikpara Row, Calcutta when a large number of leaflets, booklets circulars, etc. including those mentioned below were seized from your possession on the said date (12.10.74). (i) Copy of a printed English booklet captioned 'Draft path of Indian Revolution', issued by the Andhra Pradesh Communist Committee (Revolutionaries) inter alia, declaring that the advanced elements of working class should help the peasentry in organising armed struggle and directing the cadres that such armed struggle should be started in the country-side and after liberating the countryside they should go over to cities and towns to liberate the people and thereby to undermine the lawfully established Government in the State. (ii) Copy of a cyclostyled English document captioned 'On the method of work' inter alia, directing the cadres of the party to build up a people's army and establish base areas in the rural belt and to encircle the cities from the country side by waging a rentless armed struggle and ultimately to capture the political power in the country. (iii) Copy of cyclostyled English document dated 1.5.74, entitled 'Task of the Communists' amongst other things, directing the party activities to wage war in guerrilla method at the initial stage in order to build stable base areas and broaden their jurisdiction more and more and to develop the same into stages of mobile and regular warfare by forming people's army with the object of seizing the State power. Your above activities are prejudicial to the security of the State and if you are left free and unfettered, you are likely to continue to undermine the security of the State in similar manner as aforesaid. You are hereby informed by virtue of section 8 (2) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) that disclosure of facts, other than those already disclosed above, is considered to be against public interest.
(2.) Mr. Acharya, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, firstly, contended before us that the grounds are vague and that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation as a result thereof. In this context he pointed out that in the first ground it has been stated that the secret meeting was held 'in a house at Seal's Garden Lane, Calcutta'. According to Mr. Acharya, such expression is vague and more particulars should have been furnished in respect of the house where such meeting is alleged to have taken place. According to him the number of the house or any other description to identify the house e.g. the name of the owner or the tenant of the said house should have been specified. According to Mr. Acharya, in the absence of those particulars, the detenu was not in a position to make an effective representation. In this context Mr. Acharya has also drawn our attention to the supplementary affidavit affirmed on behalf of the petitioner wherein it has been alleged that the Seal's Garden Lane is a big lane and consists of many houses with their respective Municipal number. It is alleged that there are altogether 90 houses in the lane. Similarly, in respect of the first ground it was stated that though the date was specified as 2nd December 1974, the time at which such meeting is alleged to have taken place had not been specified. According to Mr. Acharya, if the time of the alleged meeting had been specified, than he could have made representations and produced sufficient materials before the authorities concerned, to the effect that at the relevant time he was present elsewhere and could not have attended the said meeting. In this context Mr. Acharya relied on a certificate granted by the Divisional Manager, Accounts Department, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Calcutta Divisional Office, a copy of which has been annexed to the petition. In the said certificate it has been stated that the detenu, who was an Assistant in the Accounts Department of the said Office, was present in the office on 16th of September, 1974 as per attendance register. Mr. Acharya submitted that in the absence of the specific time being mentioned in the said grounds he could not produce any other documents. Regarding the second ground also, Mr. Acharya similarly sought to contend that the grounds are vague inasmuch as, though the date of the incident has been given as 12th October, 1974 but the particular time has not been specified. It was similarly argued by Mr. Acharya that if the time had been specified the detenu could have made an effective representation against his detention. It was further submitted that the use of the words 'including those mentioned below' is vague. For all these reasons Mr. Acharya contended that the grounds are vague and that the detenu was prevented from making an effective representation.
(3.) We have carefully examined the contentions of Mr. Acharya under section 8(1) of the said Act when a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order. It is to be pointed out that sub-section (2) of section 8 of the said Act provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose the facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose. In the present case, in the grounds of detention itself reference was made by the detaining authority to sub-section (2) of section 8 of the said Act and it was stated that disclosure of facts other than those already disclosed in the said ground was considered to be against public interest. This position was reiterated by the detaining authority in his affidavits affirmed in this proceeding. It is also to be remembered that in the present case the order has been passed on the ground of security of State. Having regard to above, we are unable to hold that the grounds are vague. Similar situation arose in the case of (1) Vakil Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, reported in AIR (1974) SC 2337 wherein also the order of detention was made on the ground of 'security of state'.;