9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (2) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es essential to the community. 2. The grounds communicated to the petitioner are : (1) On 3-10 71 at about 02 00 hrs., you along with your associates committed theft in respect of 1200 feet of overhead aluminium conductor wire worth about ₹ 1, 200/- from Power Supply line of the West Bengal State Electricity Board near Hategeria village under Keshiary P.S., District Midnapore. Due to such act of yours, electric supply from Hizli Power Station to Egra remained suspended for 12 hours and chaos was created. Thus you acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. (2) On 11-10-71 at about 02.00 hrs., you along with your associates committed theft in respect of 3000 feet of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r itself had been passed on 9-3-1972 the petitioner could not be apprehended and served with the detention order till 29-7-1972 on which day he was also served with the ground of detention. 4. Mr. Mittal who appeared as amicus curiae for the petitioner, relied principally on the fact that there has been a delay of about 5 mouths before the order of detention was passed. He pointed out that there were in all 3 incidents of conductor wine cutting and while the first 2 occurred in October, 71 the third occurred in November, 1971. Thereafter, it is pointed out, the detention order had been passed 5 months later. It is, therefore, contended that this very delay in passing the order would show that the order was passed not because the District ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere in this matter merely because there has been a delay of 5 months before the detention order was passed. 5. Mr. Mittal thereupon, pointed out that the petitioner is under detention from 29.7.1972 and still continues to be in detention. It is undoubtedly true that a very long period has elapsed since the date of his internment. We however assume that the cases of all detenus are being periodically reviewed by the State Government with a view to see if the petitioner should be required to continue in detention. It should not happen that once a person is detained and the court has also thought that the detention is not invalid, the detenu should continue in detention indefinitely without his c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
