Ambica Pada Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) On a writ petition by the detenu petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the validity of the order of detention made by the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, detaining him under section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, is challenged. The delenu was put to detention pursuant to an order dated 6th March, 1975 with the avowed object of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Detention rests upon two grounds served upon the detenu on 8.3.75 together with a Hindi translation of the same. Detention however commenced on the date of the order i.e., 6.3.75. The grounds are set out hereunder : On 22.12.74 at about 19.30 hrs. you and your associates, being armed with swords, pipe-guns and bombs raided the house of one Parbati Lala of 110/IF, Cossipore Road with a view to kill his son Apurba Lala out of existing rivalry with the group of which Apurba Lala is a member. As a result of this violent attack in which the doors of the said house were damaged and bombs were exploded in and around the said premises, the inmates of the said house were panicked and the entire neighbourhood was seized with serious apprehension of similar violent attacks affecting public order. On 18.2.75 at about 21.00 hrs., there was a violent clash between two groups miscreants on Cossipore Road near its junction with K L. Das Road (P.S. Chitpore). One group was comprised of Basanta Lal Shaw of 110, Cossipore Road, Nagendra Pandey of 6, Cossipore Road and others while the other group was composed of Tarak Shaw of 6/14, Cossipore Road, yourself and others. In the clash members of both the groups exploded bombs and hurled brickbats and sodawater bottles at each other leading to serious disturbances affecting public order. As a result, local people and shopkeepers of the said locality were terrorised to pursue their normal avocation for a considerable period of time.
(2.) In the writ petition the order of detention has been impugned on several counts mainly on the point that the detenu was not involved in the incident in as much as,he had been on duty at 19.30 hrs. on 22nd December, 1974 which is the date and hours of the incident alleged in the ground No. 1. He was similarly on duty in his factory at East India Electricals at 21.00 hours an 18.2.74 i.e., the date and hour of the incident alleged in ground No. 2. A certificate purported to have been granted by Personnel Manager, East India Electricals, has been annexed to the writ petition to the same effect certifies to the above facts alleged in the writ petition. This is a plea of alibi categorically taken by the detenu petitioner in the writ petition. It has been further contended that the detenu being an illiterate person could not read or write English or Hindi so that he could not understand the contents of the grounds served upon him as the same had not been explained to him in his mother tongue Hindi at the time of service.
(3.) The rule is contested by the State and an affidavit-in-opposition has been sworn by the Commissioner of Police, the detaining authority. The relevant allegations in the writ petition with regard to the pita of alibi has been controverted in paragraph 9 of the affidavit by saying that the correctness of the certificate was denied and that the complicity of the detenu was established on reliable materials on record collected in course of investigation of the two criminal cases. These materials disprove the plea of alibi set up by the detenu It was further stated that the said plea was raised by the detenu before the Advisory Board and the Advisory Board found the said plea of alibi untenable and recommended in favour of detention.;