# ARUN KUMAR ROY alias KATU v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 552
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-05-03
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 52 of 1972
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arun-kumar-roy-alias-katu-v-the-state-of-west-bengal-5691
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

ARUN KUMAR ROY alias KATU
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
May 3, 1972
IP. J:AGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Maintenance
of nternal
Security
Act 26
of 1971-Detention
.llnder-Whether justified when grounds disclosed only facts amounting to
theft which could be proceeded with under
ordinary law-Delay In
.consideration of, de,enu's repre!l'entation by State Governmenl 'Whether
renders detention i/le2al.
T"- petitioner was detaill<!d in pursuance of an order under
the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act 26 of 197 L The order of detention
was passed by the District Magistrate on August 24, 1971. The order
was approved by the
Stat~ Government under s. 3 ( 3) of the Act OR
Septembor 4, 1971. TI1e
petitioner who was
aboconding after
the
making of the detention order was arrested on September 9, 1971.
.Soon aft,er he was served with grounds of detention. On ·October 7,
1971 a rep1..,sentation made by the petillOner was received in the offices
of the State Government. The represehtation was rejected by the State
Government on Noveml>or 17, 1971. On the sam<> date the Advisory
:Board before which the representation had been
placed by the State
Government under s. l 0 of 11>> Act reported that there was sufficient
.cause for the petitioner's detention.
On November. 26, J 971 the State
Gove1rnment confirmed the order of detention in exercise of its ·powers
under s. 12( J) of the Act.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Coastitution the petitioner .urged that (i) the theft of overhead copp>r-wire
by him mentioned in the grounds of detention was an offence unc!.er
1he Indian Per.al Code which ·could tc tried under the ordinary law;
(ii) there was undue delay in the consid.oration of his rei>resen•ation
by the State Government which rejected it only on Nm•,mber I/, 1911
after having received it on October 7, 1971.
Dismissing the petition,
B
c
D
E
HELD: (i) Undoubtedly the State
Government could if it
had
.chosen, have proceeded to put the ordinary criminal law
in motion.
F
But conditions in West Bengal were far from normal when the acl,
imputed to the p~titioner were committed. WagonJbreaking and removal of overhead traction wire posed a major problem to the mainte·
nance of supplies and 'ervices essential to the community. If therefore
the · authorities concerned felt that tre trial of· such cases under the
ordinary law of the land would not meet the requirements of the situation and particularly in the case of activities ·of the ~ind mentione<.1•
in
G
~ grounds .which we.re committed in the midd'ic of the nigh~ when
there could be few eye witnesses and
even those who viewed
such
incidents would be apprehensive of their own safuiy 'it they were asked
to give evidence against such . dangerous persons who went about arming themselves with ··swohfs and daggers not only to prevent tt.cir apprehension but also to terrorise persons who might feel
inclined to put
up any obsttuction, the State would not be unju:tified in proceeding
in the way it did. [555 G-556 Bl
H
No doubt the removal of overhead traction wire would .be a case
of theft but that is not to say that such removal would not al•o be
8
D
A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, J.)
553
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
essential to
tho
community, specially whert indulged in on a large scale. [556 CJ
(ii) The allel!Od delay in
t~.e consic'.•:ration of the petition,r"s representation by the State
Government did not render the
detentio.
iliegal under the provisions of L: Act or of the Con .. titution.
The
Act docs not make it o1:J:gatory
0;1 the State Government itself
to
consider the representation of the detenu but makes it obligatory on tlr.
part of the State Government l.l place the case before the Advisory
Board along with tb: repr.,.entation if any made by the person affected
by the o'rder.
Although s. 15 of the Act gives the appropriate government power to release a detenu for a temporary period with or without conditions, the Act does not empo\\r.!r the Gove

## Text

ARUN KUMAR ROY alias KATU
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
May 3, 1972
IP. J:AGANMOHAN REDDY, K. K. MATHEW AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.]
Maintenance
of nternal
Security
Act 26
of 1971-Detention
.llnder-Whether justified when grounds disclosed only facts amounting to
theft which could be proceeded with under
ordinary law-Delay In
.consideration of, de,enu's repre!l'entation by State Governmenl 'Whether
renders detention i/le2al.
T"- petitioner was detaill<!d in pursuance of an order under
the
Maintenance of Internal Security Act 26 of 197 L The order of detention
was passed by the District Magistrate on August 24, 1971. The order
was approved by the
Stat~ Government under s. 3 ( 3) of the Act OR
Septembor 4, 1971. TI1e
petitioner who was
aboconding after
the
making of the detention order was arrested on September 9, 1971.
.Soon aft,er he was served with grounds of detention. On ·October 7,
1971 a rep1..,sentation made by the petillOner was received in the offices
of the State Government. The represehtation was rejected by the State
Government on Noveml>or 17, 1971. On the sam<> date the Advisory
:Board before which the representation had been
placed by the State
Government under s. l 0 of 11>> Act reported that there was sufficient
.cause for the petitioner's detention.
On November. 26, J 971 the State
Gove1rnment confirmed the order of detention in exercise of its ·powers
under s. 12( J) of the Act.
In a petition under Art. 32 of the Coastitution the petitioner .urged that (i) the theft of overhead copp>r-wire
by him mentioned in the grounds of detention was an offence unc!.er
1he Indian Per.al Code which ·could tc tried under the ordinary law;
(ii) there was undue delay in the consid.oration of his rei>resen•ation
by the State Government which rejected it only on Nm•,mber I/, 1911
after having received it on October 7, 1971.
Dismissing the petition,
B
c
D
E
HELD: (i) Undoubtedly the State
Government could if it
had
.chosen, have proceeded to put the ordinary criminal law
in motion.
F
But conditions in West Bengal were far from normal when the acl,
imputed to the p~titioner were committed. WagonJbreaking and removal of overhead traction wire posed a major problem to the mainte·
nance of supplies and 'ervices essential to the community. If therefore
the · authorities concerned felt that tre trial of· such cases under the
ordinary law of the land would not meet the requirements of the situation and particularly in the case of activities ·of the ~ind mentione<.1•
in
G
~ grounds .which we.re committed in the midd'ic of the nigh~ when
there could be few eye witnesses and
even those who viewed
such
incidents would be apprehensive of their own safuiy 'it they were asked
to give evidence against such . dangerous persons who went about arming themselves with ··swohfs and daggers not only to prevent tt.cir apprehension but also to terrorise persons who might feel
inclined to put
up any obsttuction, the State would not be unju:tified in proceeding
in the way it did. [555 G-556 Bl
H
No doubt the removal of overhead traction wire would .be a case
of theft but that is not to say that such removal would not al•o be
8
D
A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, J.)
553
prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
essential to
tho
community, specially whert indulged in on a large scale. [556 CJ
(ii) The allel!Od delay in
t~.e consic'.•:ration of the petition,r"s representation by the State
Government did not render the
detentio.
iliegal under the provisions of L: Act or of the Con .. titution.
The
Act docs not make it o1:J:gatory
0;1 the State Government itself
to
consider the representation of the detenu but makes it obligatory on tlr.
part of the State Government l.l place the case before the Advisory
Board along with tb: repr.,.entation if any made by the person affected
by the o'rder.
Although s. 15 of the Act gives the appropriate government power to release a detenu for a temporary period with or without conditions, the Act does not empo\\r.!r the Government to reli!ac
« detenu finally except after the report of the Advisory Board.
(560 H-561 DJ
Further, the detenu made no g'rievance in his writ petifon
about
th!! delay in the consideration of his. representation. If any such plea
had been taken the Court would have had to consider whether Government had any explanation to offer
~or the delay.
Jn this case the
Gc"vrnment had approved of tb: order of detention as earlv as September 4, 1971 and submitted the
report to the
Central
Government.
There was nothing in the representation of tb.: petitioner apart from the:
bare denlal of his commissioq of any
offence
\Vhich
ncccssitateJ
lh..!
immediate con"ideration •Of his
rcpP:sentation.
As the Act
-did not
empower the Government to release the detenu on the strength of the
repi"esi~ntation without sending the matter to the Advisory Board. the
Government's .consideration of the r-epresenfrati.on, after its prior approval of tli.e detention order wou1d have liltle significance or import.
(561 E-FI
K. I. Singh v. Sta/, of Manipur.
A.LR.
1972
S.C.
438. distinE
guished.
G
H
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 52 of 1972.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the
nature of habeas corpus.
Shiva Puja1' Singh, for the petitioner.
S. N. Mukherjee~ for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitrer, J. The petitioner who was detained in pursuance of
an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971
( 26 of 1971) hereinatfer referred to as the 'Act') has present~d
this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution.
He states therein
that the detention order originating from the District Magistrate of
Howrah is bascles~. ma/a fide and motivated, that he was never
involved in any kind of violent or anti-social activities, that he is
a first fireman of the South Eastern Railway and by his detention
irreparable prejudice will be· caused to hi~elf and members of hi1
family,
He states further that he had gpne to the Advisory Board
on November 17, 1971 and that his detention was con.firmed and
communicated to him on December 8, 1971.
His grievance is
"''
554
SUPRBME COURT ~~PORTS· -
[1973] 1 s.c.R.
•
that no first information was lodged against him as was ~cessary.
in the circumstances of the case and his detention is not warranted
by law.
From the affidavit affi~ed by the_ District Magistrate of
Howrah in opposition to the petition the following facts emerge :-
( I ) The order was made against the petitioner on 24th August
l 971 in exercise of the Magistrate's power conferred by sub-s. ( 1)
read with sub-s. (2) of s. 3 of the Act with a view to preventing
the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
( 2) The grounds for the order of detention bearing the same
date show that on 23rd May 1971 at about 2.15 a.m. the petitioner
along with some associates armed with swords, daggers etc. had
cut down and stolen qway 40 meters of copper contact wire from
the over head traction wires from K. M. Post No. 9/31x to 10/lx
in the Up line in between Hourigra.m and Andual railway stati.on,s
causing disruption 'in train servic_es on tl:ie Howrah Khargapur
sectiQn an.i;I that he bitd, a_<;~ in a si:milaF manner i11 company with
some associates being similarly armed on the night of 1th ·Jun;;
1971 at about 2 a.m. and had cut down copper contact wire from
KM. Post Nos. 9 /25 and 9 /27 on the Up Linc in l;etween Santragachi and Mourigr'!m railw.ay stations. on the Howrah Khrgapur
section and his acts were considered prejudicial to the maint11riall\;,t;
of supplies and :.ervices essential to the community.
( 3) On August 24, 1971 the District Magistrate had reported
tq the Sta,te U1m1~i:11t <!bout t:he passing. of th~ detentifflt order
together with the grounds of detention and all other particulars
bearing on the same.
The sai4 report aQd partic\llars. wer-e considered by the State Government and on September 4, 1971
the
detention order was approvep by the State Go11erl)ffillllt under
sub-s. (3) of s. 3 of the Act.
( 4) Soon after the passing of the orde_r of <le.tentjon. th!} petitioner :was_ found to be. absconding and coulc,t be arr~Sted billy on
9th September 1971 when he was served with the. otdet of d~t\Xl
tion and the grounds thereof.
He_ was ijsq infqrmed tjiat
h~
c®ld make a representation to tne siate Government_ against hi-.
detention order and that' his case wql!id' be- placi;d befon; - tl~
Advisory Board within 30 days from the ctate-of'it1" detention order.
( 5) On, September 4, 1971 the State Goverb.inent submitted
a report to the -Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section ( 4) of s. 3 of ihe Act together
with the grounds of detention and other particulars.
B
c
D
B
c
..
D
E
F
G
H
A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, J.)
555
( 6) On 7th October 1971 a representation from the detenu
petitioner was received in the Home Department (Special Section)
of the State Government forwarded by the Superintendent of the
Dum Dum Central Jail.
(7) On 8th October 1971 the case of the detenu petitioner
was placed before the Advisory Board.
·
( 8) On November 17, 1971 the representation of the petitioner was considered by the State Government.
The State Government rejected it by an order of the same date.
( 9) On November 17, 1971 the Advisory Board after consideration of the materials placed before it and the said representation and after giving a personal hearing to the detenu petitioner·
submitted its report to the State Government to the effect that
there was sufficient cause for the detention.
(10) By an order dated November 26, 1971 the State Government in cxt:,rcise of its powers under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 12 of
the Act confirmed the order of detention .
(11) The confirmation of the order was communicated by t4e
State Government to the detenu petitioner by Jetter dated Decen1ber 7, 1971.
A copy of 1he representation of the petitioner to the Advisory
Board is one of the annexures to the counter affidavit. The ·case
made by him therein was that the allegations about the removal
of over head traction wire were not true, that in any event they
also disclosed commission of the offences of theft which are cognizable offences and any such incident, if true in fact, should
have been reported to the police under the provisions of the Code
of Crinlinal Procedure and in the circumstances of the case the
grounds of detention notified in the order made against him were
not tenable under the law.
Counsel for the petitioner put forward a two-fold argument
before us.
His first submission was that even if the grounds of
detention supplied to the petitioner were true in substance, they
constituted cases of theft for which ample provision was made in
the ordinary criminal law of the country and ithere was no necessity to resort to the Act for detaining the petitioner. Undoubtedly
the Stat7 ~ould if i~ had cp.osen, !-,ave p;oceeded to put the ordil'!ary ~fll11ULal law m motion.
But as 1s well known the condi- ·
tlons m some parts of West Bengal were far from normal at the
time when the acts imputed to the petitioner were committed.
Wa.gon-breakini: and rem.oval of overhead traction wire posed a
ma1or prob~m to the mamtenance of supplies and service\ essential to the community. If therefore 'the au.thorities concerned
felt that the trial of such cases under the ordinary law of the land
556
SUPREME COURt REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
would not meet the requirements of the situation and .particularly
in the case of activities of the. kind mentioned in the grounds
which were committed in the middle of the night when there
could be few eye witnesses and even those who viewed such inci·
dents would be apprehensive of their own safety if they were asked
to give evidence against such dangerous persons who went about
arming themselves with swords and daggers not only to prevent
their apprehension but also to 'terrorise persons who might feel
inclined to pu\ .UP a)ly obstruction, the State would not be un.iustified in rrocuding in the way it did.
No doubt the removal of overhead 'traction wire would be a
A
B
case of theft but that ·is not to say that such removal would not
C
r:
also be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services
;fl'
essential to the community, specially when indulged in on a large
scale. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the first con·
tention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Th11 secong contention urged was that ithere was inordinate
delay in. the consideration of the petitioner's representation and
as such, apart from any other consideration, the petitioner was
entitled to an order of release. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in K. I. Singh v. State of Manipur('). In that
case orders had been passed against the petitioners by the District Magistrate Manipur under sub-s. ( 2) of s. 3 read with subs. ( 1) of th~ Orissa Preventive Detention Act, 1970 as extended
to Manipur. The orders had been passed with a view to preventing 1them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The grounds of detention were furnished
to the detenues on the day they wete taken into custody.
The
District Magistrate had made the necessary report 'lo the Administrator of Manipur under sub-s, (3) of s. 3 on February IO, 1971.
The Administrator approved the orders ·of detention of the District Magistrate passed on January 31, 1971 and the orders of
approval were also communicated to the detenu.
The peti·
tioners had made a joint representation on 1st March 1971 which
was received by the Government on 3rd Maren, 1971. The
Administrator considered the representations and ·rejected the
same on March 20, 1971. The petitioners were informed about
such rejeption by communication dated March 22, 1971. The
Advisory Board considered the matter and sent its report on
April 12, 1971 expressing its opinion tha!t the detention of the
petitioners was justified. The ground advanced on behalf of the
petitioners in that case with which we are concerned was that
there was an inordinate delay of 17 days in the Administrator
dispo~ing of the representation made by the petitioners and as
(1) A.l.R. 1972 S.C. 438.
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
-
D
E
F
G
A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, !.)
557
such there was a violation of the provisions of Art. 22(5) of the
Constiturtion. This ground was specifically taken in the writ petition in which it was expressly pleaded :
" ...... even assuming that any information had
to be collected by the Government the period of 17 days
as stated by the Government was not at all necessary
and any information could have been got easily from the
Jailor, Manipur Central Jail, Imphal, within a few
minutes as the iail was located within a very short distance from the Secrctariat."
The explanation offered in the counter affid!\Vit of the State in
that case was not accepted· as in the view of this Court ·the respondent did not state what steps, if a1:1y, had been taken in between March 3, 1971 and March 20, 1971 and there was only "a
very bald statement that enquiries were sought from jail authorities through Sub-Deputy Collector, Headquarters and the Jail
authority sent ~letter on March 18, 1971." The Court referred
to the fact that there was no averment in the counter affidavit that
the· enquries referred to therein had been made orally and in the
absence of such averment the court was of opinion that it would
be reasonable to presume that there would be official communication in writing on the subject. In the result the Court held that
there was an unexplained delay of 17 days in the Government disposing of the representation of the detenues.
The four principles which this Court formulated in that cuse
to be followed in regard to representation of detenues were :
"Ftrst, the appropriate authority is bound to .give
an opportunity to the detenu to make a representation
and to consider the representa!tion of the detenu as early
as possible.
Secondly, the consideration of the representa>ion of the detenu by the appropriate authority is
entirely independent of any action by the Advisory
Board including the consideration of the representation
of the detenu by the Advisory Board.
Thirdly, there
should not t.~ any delay in the matter of consideration. It is true that no hard and fast rule can be laid
down as to the measure of time taken by the appropriate authority for consideration but it has to be remembered that the Government has to be vigilant in the
governance of the citizens.
A citizen's right raises a
correlative duty of the State. Fourthly, the appropriate
Goveriunent is to exercise its opinion and judgment on
the representation before sending the case along with
the dellll!u's representation to the Advisory Board. If
the appropriate Government will release the detenu the
558
SUPREME COllRT REPORTS
[] 073] ] S.C.R.
Government will not send the matter to the Advisory
A
Board. If however the Government will not release the
detcnu the Government will. send the case along with
the detenu's representation to the Advisory B0ard.
If
thereafter the Advisory Board will express an opinion
in favour of the release of the detenu the Governmen1
will release· the de1enu.''
B
On the facts of that case as the Court was not satisfied with th·~
explanation of the delay in the counter affidavit i't directed the _release of the petitioners holding that the unexplained delay by it·
self was a sufficient ground for treating the orders of detention
as illegal.
·
We must consider the provisions of the Aot in the background
of the constitutional provisions.
Under Art. 22( 4):
"No law providing for preventive deteD'tion
shall
authorise the detention of a person for a longer period
than three months unless-
( a) an Advisory Board . . . . . . has reported before
the expiration of the said period of three months tha'!
there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention."
This is subject to ·the proviso that nothing in this sub-clause
shall authorise 'the detention of any person beyond the maximurn
period prescribed by any law made by Parliament uniler subclause (b) of cl. (7).
Cl. ( 5) of Art. 22 provides that when
any oerson is detained in pursuance of an order made under any
law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the
order shall communicate to such person the grounds on which
the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportμnity of making a representation against the order.
The Act in this case is a Parliamentary Act under which the
Central Government or the State Government may in terms of
s. 3 ( 1), if satisfied with respect to any person with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to. . . .
the
maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community •
. . . . it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such
person be detained.
Under sub-s. (2) of the section any of the
officers mentioned including the Di~trict Magistrate may, if satisfied as provided in sub-els. (ii) and (iii) of cl. (a) of sub-s.(l)
exercise the power conferred by the said sub-section. S.3 (3) provides as follows :-
"When any order is made under this section by an
officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall forthwith
report the fact to the State Government to which he is
c
D
E
F
. G
H
-
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. K. ~OY V, STt,TI! (Mitter, J,)
•
subordinate together with th~ grounds on which the
or\ier has been made and such O'!her particulars as in
his opinion have a bearing on the matter, and no such
order shall remain in force for more than twelve days
after the makin.e: thereof unless in the meantime it has
heen approved by the, State Government :
Provided that where under section 8 the g,ounds of
detention are communicated by th~ tk authority making
the order after five days but not later than fifteen days
from the da1e of detention, this sub-section shall apply
subject to the modification that for the words "twelve
days" the words "twenty-two days" shall be substituted."
U~der s. 8 (1)
. "When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, ih'e authority making the order shall, as soon
as may be, but ordinarily nO't later tllan five days and
in exceptional circumstances and for reasons
to
be
record.ed in writing, not later than fifteen days. from
the date of detention. communicate to him the grounds
on which the order has been made and shall aff0rd him
the earliest opportunity of making · a
!'~presentation
against the order to the appropriate Government."
559
Under s. 9( 1 l. the Central Government and each State Govern·
ment has 10 constitute one or more Advisory
Boards for
the
purpose of the Act.
Sub-s. (2) deals with the constitu'tion
of
Advisory Boards.
Under s. I 0
"Save as oth>~rwise expressly provided in this Act,
in eveQ'. case where n detention order has been made
under this Act, the appropria1e Government shall. with·
in thirty days from . the date of detention under the
order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by
i't under section 9 the grounds on which the order has
been mnde and the representation, if any, made by the
person affected by the order, and in case where the order
has been made by an officer, also the
report of such
officer under sub-section (3) of section 3."
Under s. 11(1):
"The Advisory Board shall. after considering the
materials placed before it and after calling for such
further information as it may deem necessary from the
appropriate Government or from any person called for
the purpose through the appropriate Government or
from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case,
it considers it essential so to do or if the person con-
560
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] I S.C.R.
cerne? ~esires to be heard, after hearing him in person,
submvt its report to the appropriate Government within
ten weeks from the date of detention."
!-.lnder subs-. (2) the report of the Advisory Board must contain
m a separate part thereof the opinion as to whether or not there
is sufficient cause for the detention of the person
concerned.
Under s. 12
" ( 1) In any case where the Advisory Board has
reported that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for the
detention of a person the appropriate Government may
confirm the detention order or continue the detention of
the person concerned for such period as it thinks fit.
(2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is in its opinion no sufficient cause
for the detention of the person concerned, the appropriate Government shall revoke the detention order and
cause the person to be released forthwith."
Under s. 13 the maximum period for which any person is
detained in pursuance of any detention order which has been confirmed under s. 12 shall be twelve months from the diite of
detention.
·
A
Jl
c
D
The Act shows that if a detention order is ma.de by an officer
such as the District Magistrate it cannot remain in force for
E
more than 12 days after the making thereof unless in the meantime it is approved of by the State Government. The State Government is also under a duty to communicate the order made
and its approval of the order within 7 days to the Central Government.
Under s. 10 the appropriate Government must place
the case within 30 days from the date of detention before th~
F
Advisory Board.
As the case was pla,ced before the Advisory
Board on 8th October, 1971, all the provisions of the Act from
sections 3 to 10 were undoubtedly given effect to within time.
The onlv complaint which is now raised though not made in the
petition is that the repres~ntation was considered by the Government as also by the Advisory Board only on 17th November .
1971, i.e. one month and ten days after the date of the receipt
G
of the repre5entation.
As the Advisory Board has to consider
the case within ten weeks from the date of detention which in this
case was 9th
0 Septembcr, 1971, there has been no violation of the
provisions of section. The question is, can the order of det-~ntion
be unheld on the facts of this case in the background of the constit\i.tional provisions.
H
It will be noticed that the Act does not make it ob!i11:atory
on th1~ State Government i~self 110 consider the representation of
•
A
B
c
•
D
E
F
G
H
A. K. ROY v. STATE (Mitter, I.)
561
the detenu but makes it obligatory on the part of the State Government to place Ll.e case before the Advisory Board along with
the representation if any, made by the person affected by the order
and where the order has been made by an officer also the report
of such officer under sub-s. (3) of s. 3.
The Advisory Board
must consider the materials placed befor., it and may call for
further information as it may deem necessary from the appropriate Government or from the person concerned and submit its
report to the approμriate Government after hearing the detenu
in person if he desires' to be heard or in any case where the Board
eonsiders it essential tp give him a hearing.
The Board must
milke its report to the appropriate Government withir. ren week&
l'rom the date of detention.
Although s. 15 of the Act gives the
appropriate Government power to release a detenu for a temporary period with or withou~ conditions, the Act does not empower
the Government to release a detenu finally except after the report of the Advisory Board. When the Advisory Board reports
that there is no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the Government must give effect to it and revoke the detention order.
The main ·hurdle against the petitioner in this case is that he
made no grievance in his writ petition about the delay in the
consideration of his representation. ·If any such plea had been
taken, we would have had to consider whether Government had
any explanation to offer for 'the delay.
In this case, as already
noted, the Government had approved of the order of detention
as. early as September 4, 1971 and submitted its report to the-
.Central Government.
There was nothing in the representation
of the petitioner, apart from a bare denial of his commission of
any offence which necessitated the immediate consideration of
the representation. As the Act did not empower the Government
to release the detenu on the strength of the representation without sending the matter to the Advisory Board, it appears to us
that Government's consideration of the representation,
af~er its
prior approval of the detention order would have little significance
or import.
Whether or not Government took any steps to enlighten itself more about the representation of the petitioner, we do not
know and on the facts of this case, we are not called upon tc>
consider.'
In the result, we are not satisfied that this is a case where the
detention order should be quashed. The petition is accordingly
dismissed.
·
G. C.
Petition dismissed: