Sitala Prasad Shaw vs State of West Bengal

Y.V. Chandrachud, J

The petitioner was detained by an order dated August 23, 1973 passed by the District Magistrate, Howrah, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order recites that the petitioner was detained with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

The particulars of the ground of detention refer to a solitary incident dated March 18, 1973. It is alleged that at about 2 p.m. on that date, the petitioner and his associates being armed with swords, Ballams and Lathis attacked a group of Bengalees at Rajnarayan Roy Choudhury Ghat Road, Shibpur, Howrah causing severe injuries to them. It is further stated that this conduct led to a reign of terror in the locality as a result of which the shops and the doors of the read side houses were closed, people of the locality fled away in panic and the people were generally afraid of coming out o f their houses for fear of being assaulted.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two points for our consideration in this petition for the writ of habeas corpus. The particulars furnished to the petitioner say that the petitioner was detained on the ground: "you have been acting" in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public  order. The argument is that the order is founded on a single incident and therefore, the use of language showing that the culpable con duct on the part of the petitioner extended over an appreciably long period of time was wholly inappropriate. Inferentially; it is urged, the detaining authority had material before it showing that the petitioner was indulging in a criminal course of conduct for a long period of time and as such material was not disclosed to the petitioner, he bad no opportunity to meet it, leading thereby to the contravention of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. We are not impressed by this submission. It is true that in matters involving the liberty of the subject, the detaining authorities ought to exercise the greatest care in the discharge of their functions. But that does not justify an unrealistic dissection of detention orders. The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Govt. shows that no other material was taken into account by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. Therefore, the use of the expression, "you have been acting" though unfortunate does not support the submission that the order of detention is founded on undisclosed material . The petitioner was expressly apprised that he had been acting in a manner prejudical to the maintenance of public order "as evidenced by the particulars" furnished to him. The particulars refer only to a single incident.The second ground of attack on the detention order is that when the State Government approved the detention on August 30, 1973 it passed an order approving a detention order dated "25-8-73". As the impugned order of detention is dated August 23, 1973 it is urged that while approving the detention of the petitioner, the State Government had before it some other order of detention. There is no substance in this contention. The order of approval contains but a typographical error. This is clear from the order passed by the State Govt. on November 8, 1973 confirming the order of detention after obtaining the opinion of the Advisory Board. The order of confirmation refers to the order of detention dated August 23, 1973. It must also be stated that as in the order of confirmation so in the order of approval, an express reference is made to the detention order bearing No. 1818- C. The order of detention passed against the petitioner on August 23, 1973 bears that very number which shows hat the reference to an order dated "25-8-73" in the order of approval is a topographical mistake.

In the result, we confirm the order of detention and discharge the rule in this petition.

Petition dismissed.