BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, J. - (1.) IN this application for a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus the detenu is challenging an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 24 -Parganas on the 17th of May, 1973. in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Sub -section (1) read 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 made with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In view of our finding, as hereinafter stated, it is not necessary to set out the grounds of detention served on the detenu.
(2.) MR . Kundu, learned Advocate appearing in support of the Rule raised various contentions before us which were not found acceptable by us. But in respect of the procedural requirements, Mr. Kundu submitted before us that the detention is illegal in as much as the fact of making of the order was not reported 'forthwith' as required by Sub -section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act. It appears that the said order of detention, though made on 17th May. 1973, was reported to the State Government under Section 3(3) of the said Act only on 22nd May, 1973, i.e., 5 days' later. Mr. Kundu in this context relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Omprakash Joshi v. State of West Bengal reported in (1973) 77 Cal WN 858 and submitted that in the absence of a proper explanation such delay is fatal. Accordingly we gave an opportunity to the State to affirm a supplementary affidavit setting out the reasons for the time taken in reporting the fact of the order. Pursuant to such leave a supplementary affidavit was affirmed by the detaining authority wherein he has sought to explain such delay. Unfortunately, the explanation put forward is very vague and general in nature and it did not specifically deal with the facts of the case before us. It is stated in the said affidavit that as soon as the order of detention was made on the 17th May, 1973, according to 'official practice and procedure', the detaining authority sent the respective file and/or record to the 'dealing assistant concerned' for complying with the official requirements, namely, preparation of draft for the purpose of making report to the State Government under Section 3(3) of the said Act, docketing the same, putting in official reference numbers and dates, preparation of forwarding letter and such other official works with the direction that the same should be placed before him as early as possible for the purpose of making report to the State Government forthwith. It was further stated that at the material time a large number of detention orders were made by the said authority and the department was busy taking appropriate steps relating to the same in addition to the normal works of the department and as such 'it was not possible often to complete' preparation of draft report, docketing, giving reference nos. and dates, preparation of forwarding letter and such other works in course of a day or so. It was stated further that after the official procedures were duly complied with and the report was checked, verified and prepared in final form, the same was placed before the detaining authority 'as early as possible' for his perusal and signature according to the priority of the order passed along with the required number of copies of the other detention, grounds for detention and the history sheets with forwarding letter for the purpose of sending the said report to the State Government. as expeditiously as possible. It was further stated that in the instant case the report under Section 3(3) of the said Act along with the respective documents were placed before the detaining authority on 22nd of May, 1973 and he immediately signed the same and directed the defendant to despatch the same to the State Government as early as possible and the same was also duly sent in course of the same day.
(3.) AS already stated, the explanation put forward is very vague and general in nature. It refers to some 'official practice and procedure'. It does not specifically state what procedure was followed in this particular case and when. It appears that certain steps involved, before this matter can be reported, are preparation of draft for the purpose of making report, docketing the same, putting in official reference, nos. and dates, preparation of forwarding letter and such other 'official works'. It has not been stated when the draft was prepared or when the same was docketed or when the official reference nos. were put in or when the forwarding letter was prepared or when other 'official works' were carried out in respect of this order. It has not been mentioned who was the dealing assistant concerned. There is no affidavit by such dealing assistant. As regards 'large number of detention orders' the same is vague and without any particulars. No particulars of any other order, which may have been passed at or about the same time has been specified. In any event, that cannot be. by itself, a sufficient explanation for the delay. Statutory requirements have to be strictly complied with, irrespective of the question of the alleged inconvenience of the office of the detaining authority. Further the alleged 'normal works' cannot hold up the expeditious steps to be taken in respect of an order of detention. It is also stated that after the official procedure were duly complied with, the orders were placed for his perusal and signature as early as possible. It has not been made clear when it was duly complied with and what stages passed before they were placed before the detaining authority. Further it has also not been made clear what is meant by 'as early as possible'. Accordingly we gave further opportunity to the State to file further supplementary affidavit, to explain clearly the reasons for delay in the present case. After some time Mr. G.N. Roy appeared before us and in his usual fairness conceded before us that he was not satisfied that any further or better explanation could be given in respect of this particular order. Accordingly, we are unable to accept the purported explanation as out forward in the said affidavit.;