Supreme Court of India

Nepal Hait vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1972

Supreme Court of India
Nepal Hait vs The State Of West Bengal on 25 January, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 SC 466, 1973 CriLJ 686, (1972) 3 SCC 774, 1972 (4) UJ 524 SC
Author: J Shelat
Bench: H Khanna, J Shelat


JUDGMENT

J.M. Shelat, J.

1. The petitioner herein was directed to be detained by an order of the District Magistrate, Howrah, passed on April 12, 1971, on his being satisfied that it was necessary to do so with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, a ground upon which the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, President’s Act 19 of 1970, confers power to pass such an order under its Section 3(1) and (3) upon the District Magistrate.

2. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was arrested on May 12, 1971, and taken in detention. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner alleged that on February 5, 1971 and February 27, 1971 the petitioner along with certain other associates, armed with bombs, burnt down the club room of Kadamtala Milan Sangha Club, and caused grievous injury to one Banti Sarkar by throwing a bomb at him. But the aforesaid acts caused alarm and terror to the residents of the locality. It is not disputed that these activities fell within the definition of the expression “acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order” as contained in Section 3(2) of the Act. It is also not and cannot be disputed that all the steps taken by the detaining authority, required to be taken under the act, were properly and within the time prescribed by the Act therefore were duly taken and that none of them is affected by any flaw or infirmity. It is not contended that the grounds for the petitioner’s detention were either vague or indefinite since they were clearly stated and contained sufficient particulars to enable the petitioner to effectively make his representation.

3. That being the position, there is no ground urged before us upon which the petition can be sustained.

4. In the result the petition has to be dismissed which we hereby do.