9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the grounds for detention under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. 2. Delay in consideration of the detenu's representation by the State Government. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Grounds for Detention: The District Magistrate of Jalpaiguri passed an order on May 7, 1971, under Section 3(3) of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, directing the detention of the petitioner to prevent him from acting prejudicially to the maintenance of public order. The grounds for detention included two incidents: on December 1, 1970, the petitioner and others set fire to the Headmaster's room in Moynaguri Higher Secondary School, causing significant damage and placing a bomb in the premises; on April 5, 1971, the petitioner again set fire to parts of the same school and threatened the staff with death if they resisted or disclosed his identity. The petitioner denied involvement in these incidents, claiming the allegations were false, baseless, and motivated. The State Government, however, asserted that there was reliable material justifying the detention order. The Court found the petitioner's allegations vague and unsupported by any material evidence. The Advisory Board also reported sufficient cause for detention, thereby justifying the order. The petitioner's counsel argued that the acts alleged did not constitute a breach of public order, but merely offenses under the Penal Code. The Court referred to previous decisions distinguishing between "law and order" and "public order," emphasizing that public order affects the community or public at large. The Court concluded that the acts alleged against the petitioner, involving arson and bomb threats in an educational institution, disturbed or were likely to disturb public order, thus validating the detention order under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act. 2. Delay in Consideration of the Detenu's Representation: The petitioner's representation, received by the State Government on May 27, 1971, was not considered and disposed of until July 1, 1971, a lapse of 34 days. The petitioner argued that this delay violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, rendering the detention order invalid. The Court referred to principles laid down in Jayanarayan Sukul v. West Bengal, emphasizing the need for the Government to consider representations as early as possible and independently of the Advisory Board. The Court noted that the delay was partly due to the representation and records being with the Advisory Board. The records showed that the Government sent the files to the Board on June 7, 1971, and considered the representation upon their return, before the Board made its report. The Court found that the Government might need time to make inquiries, especially when the detention order was passed by another authority, in this case, the District Magistrate. The Court concluded that the delay in deciding the representation was not so inordinate as to affect the validity of the detention, given the circumstances and the need for thorough consideration. Each case must be decided on its own facts, and no hard and fast rule regarding the time for consideration could be laid down. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the grounds for detention were valid under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970, and the delay in considering the representation did not invalidate the detention order.
|
