9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution. 2. Validity of detention order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. 3. Allegations of arrest date discrepancy and lack of explanation of grounds for detention. 4. Absence of affidavit from the District Magistrate who passed the detention order. 5. Inclusion of additional information in the affidavit not mentioned in the grounds of detention. Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his detention under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The respondents included the District Magistrate, Burdwan, the Superintendent of Burdwan Jail, and the State of West Bengal. 2. The District Magistrate passed a detention order under Section 3 of the Act to prevent the petitioner from acting prejudicially to essential supplies and services. The State Government approved the order after receiving reports from an Advisory Board, which confirmed the grounds for detention. 3. The petitioner alleged being arrested on a different date and not being informed of the grounds for detention at the time of arrest. However, the respondents denied these claims, stating that the petitioner was arrested on a different date and the grounds were explained in a language he understood, with a copy provided. 4. The absence of an affidavit from the District Magistrate who issued the detention order was raised as an issue. The court clarified that while such an affidavit is typically necessary, its absence may not be fatal unless specific allegations of bias or malice are made, which was not the case here. 5. The petitioner argued that additional information in the affidavit, labeling him a "notorious stealer of electric copper wire," was not included in the grounds of detention, hindering his ability to make a proper representation. However, the court found that the District Magistrate based the detention solely on the specified grounds, allowing the petitioner to effectively respond to the allegations. 6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the detention was valid, and the petitioner had not been deprived of the opportunity to make a meaningful representation against his detention.
|
