9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (10) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 26 of 1971 (hereinafter called as the Act). The detention order dated February 11, 1972 the legality of which is assailed herein reads: Government of West Bengal Order No. 728C Dated Suri, the 11-2-1972 Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Akshoy Konai s/o Kelu Konai of Karkaria, P. S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum that with view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) I hereby make t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment. The petitioner's case was placed before the Advisory Board on March 13, 1972 and the Board gave its report on April 17, 1972. The State Government confirmed the order on May 10, 1972 which was communicated to the petitioner the same day. The petitioner's representation had been received by the State Government on April 4, 1972 which was considered by it two days later on April 6, 1972. 2. The first objection against the petitioner's detention raised by Shri B. Dutta, the learned Counsel appearing as amicus curiae in support of the writ petition, is that though the petitioner had been heard in person by the Advisory Board the decision of the Board was never communicated to him. This omission, according to the counsel, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion no sufficient cause for his detention, the appropriate Government would have revoked the impugned order of detention and caused the petitioner to be released because under Section 12(2) of the Act it was obligatory on the part of the appropriate Government to do so. 3. The submission that the Advisory Board should have communicated its opinion to the petitioner so as to enable him to question its legality is also misconceived. In the first instance the Advisory Board constituted under Section 9 of the Act, as its name connotes, is only required to function in an advisory capacity. Its opinion which is merely an advice is binding on the appropriate Government only if according to it there is no sufficient cause for the detention in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrate was not sure in his mind about the precise ground for detaining the petitioner and that he had mechanically reproduced the language used in Section 3(a)(ii) of the Act. Reliance for this submission was placed on a recent decision of this Court in Kishori Mohan v. The State of West Bengal AIR1972SC1749 in which the earlier decision of this Court in Ananta Mukhi v. State of West Bengal 1972CriLJ885 , dealing with a detention order made under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 19 of 1970 was distinguished. 5. The present case is directly covered by the decision in Kishori Mohan, AIR1972SC1749 (supra) and no serious attempt was made on behalf of the State to support the legality of the impugned order by either disti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
