No 328 of 1968
Petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
R K Garg for the petitioners
Debabrata Mukherjee P K Chakravarti and G section Chatterjee for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover J
This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitu tion by Sushanta Goswami and 46 others for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus challenging the detention of the petitioners under the provisions of the  hereinafter called the Act
Petitioner No 4 Krishna Mondal and Petitioner No 21 Madhu Kanjilal are stated to have been released
No orders need he 139 made with regard to them
As regards petitioners Nos 2 8 9 15 22 24 32 41 and 47 their matters will be taken up for consideration later as the State has been directed to file further affidavits
We now proceed to dispose of the cases of the other petitioners
Petitioner No 1 Sushanta Goswami This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated July 30 1968
His detention was directed under section 32 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation to the Advisory Board which after hearing the petitioner and considering his representation expressed its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Consequently the detention order dated July 30 1968 was confirmed on September 20 1968 by the Government of West Bengal
The grounds for detention have been perused by us
According to the first ground the petitioner had been committing offences of forming unlawful assembly assaulting the police and peaceful inhabitants snatching away cash and valuables teasing school girls and criminal intimidation
The instances which were given are seven out of which it is necessary to mention only the following which are typical  ii That on 14 11 66 at 2115 hrs
 you with your associates formed an unlawful assembly on Dum Dum Road in front of the Fire Brigade Office and assaulted Shri Pranab Bose of P 18 Matijheel Avenue and you snatched away a fountain pen worth Rs 10 from his pocket
vi That on 18 3 68 at 1930 hrs
 you with your associates closely followed Sm
Sipra Kundu 18 from Satgachi crossing on Jessore Road and uttered indecent language towards her as a result of which she got terrified and ran away to save her modesty
 Ground No 11 is to the effect that as a result of the petitioner s nefarious activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order he has become a nuisance to the society and there have been disturbances and confusion in the lives of peaceful citizens of Dum Dum police station and the inhabitants thereof are in constant dread of disturbance of public order
We do not consider that the above grounds are relevant to public order and if some of the grounds which are given are irrelevant the order of detention cannot be upheld because the court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those reasons vide Dwarka 140 Das Bhatia vs The State of Jammu  Kashmir1 and the recent decision of this Court in Pushkar Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal 2 
There the order of detention is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 3 Panchu Gopal Mondal
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated March 23 1968 made in exercise of the power conferred by section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that the detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community
He was supplied with the grounds and he made a representation
It was sent to the Advisory Board which after hearing him and considering all the material placed before it expressed  its opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order on July 17 1968
We have perused the grounds of detention and we find that most of them relate to matters for which penal or other action could be taken under the relevant statutes
For instance ground No 1ii is as follows  That on 12 1 68 at 1130 hrs
you were found operating your husking machine at puraton Bongaon and on demand by SIS Chatterjee of SEB 7 you could not produce the requisite license or permit
That though you were prosecuted for operating your husking machine on 12 1 68 you carried on further operation with it as it was left on your bond of production violating again the provisions of West Bengal Husking Machine Control of Operation Amendment Order 1967
 The fact that the petitioner could not produce the requisite licence or permit can hardly be regarded as relevant for detention on the ground of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community
For the aforesaid reasons this petitioner is also entitled to be released
Petitioner No 5 Debendra Nath Das This petitioner was detained by an order dated May 9 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act
His detention was considered necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which after hearing him personally and considering all the materials expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner s detention
His detention was confirmed by the Government of West 1 1956 SCR945
2  141 Bengal by an order dated July 17 1968
The grounds of detention have been considered by us and we are of the opinion that they relate mainly to the question of law and order and are not relevant to public order
Moreover there are allegations of offences under the Indian Penal Code for which prosecution could be launched
As has been observed in Pushkar Mukherjee  I Ors
vs State of West Bengal1 the contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the community or the public at large
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public order can alone justify detention under that head
Ground No 1 viii which is typical may be specifically mentioned That on 26 2 68 at about 0900 hrs
you and your associates stabbed Constable Bhupendra Nath Chakraborty of Gouripur TOP under Dum Dum PS near Birati Railway Level Crossing gate and stole away his wrist watch
 We are satisfied that the petitioner could not have been detained on the grounds which are before us
He is therefore entitled to be released
Petitioner No 7 Abdul Waheb
He was detained by an order dated May 27 1968 of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 on the ground that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
He was supplied the grounds on which he made a representation to the Advisory Board which heard him personally and after considering all the material an opinion was expressed that there was sufficient cause for his detention
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order on August 21 1968
We have perused the grounds for the petitioners  detention
They relate mostly to the question of law and order and are not relevant to public order
Consequently the petitioner is entitled to be released
Petitioner No 6 Anil Das
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate Howrah dated May 18 1968 made under section 32 of the Act the detention being considered necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The representation made by the petitioner was forwarded to the Advisory Board which considered all the material before it and was of the opinion 1 19692 SCR 635 142 that sufficient cause for his detention existed
On July 29 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention
Most of the grounds are not at all relevant to maintenance of public order
Ground No 1 a is that on August 12 1966 at about 1000 hrs
you being drunk demanded Rs 2 from Shri Santi Das  near the betel shop of Shalta Lal and threatened him with murder when he refused to pay you the said money We are satisfied that the petitioner s detention cannot be upheld and it is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 10 Dilip Kr
Chakraborty  Konkan This petitioner was detained by an order dated June 13 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
One of the grounds namely 1 ii is 
That on 13 3 67 you with your associate Debu Biswas assaulted one Paresh Nath Koley of Ghosepara with fists and blows
Such a ground cannot possibly relate or be relevant to public order
In view of our previous decisions mentioned before we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be released
It may be mentioned that this petitioner had also filed a petition under article 226 in the Calcutta High Court but his counsel has undertaken to withdraw that petition
Petitioner No 12 Ashoka Kumar Mukherjee
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated May 25 1968 made under section 32 of the Act the reason for his detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board which after giving a personal hearing expressed an opinion that his detention was justified
The Government confirmed the original order of detention on August 8 1968
We have examined the grounds and they suffer from the same infirmity as in the case of petitioner No 7 Abdul Waheb
Ground No 1 i may be reproduced  That on 3 6 67 you assaulted one Nabalchandra Saha a hawker with knife This petitioner is also entitled to be released
Petitioner No 13 Ram Kamal Dhar  Leda This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30 1968 passed by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view 143 to preventing him from acting
in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds of detention
disclose the same infirmities which are to be found in the case of petitioner No 7 Abdul Waheb and Petitioner No 10 Dilip Chakraborty  Konkan
For instance one of the grounds No 3 is in these terms  On 1 5 68 at about 1235 hrs
you along with your two associates being armed with daggers snatched away a wrist watch worth Rs 130 from the person of the Kulak Chandra Sarkar So Late Sahadeb Sarkar of Madhab Nibas Colony P section Titagarh Dist
24 Parganas near Dum Dum South home signal at the point of dagger causing bleeding injury
You were arrested with property red handed
 Therefore the petitioner is entitled to be released
Petitioner No 14 Gopal Show
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 11 1968 made by the District Magistrate Howrah on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds were supplied to him on which he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board by which he was also personally heard
On the report of the Advisory Board that there was sufficient cause for his detention the original order was confirmed by the Government of West Bengal on October 7 1968
This case falls very much in the same group as that of the petitioners Nos 7 10 and 12 above mentioned
According to one of the grounds the petitioner had on Octo ber 12 1967 along with his associates committed a daring burglary in Howrah Tobacco Store by breaking open 67 padlocks and removed Cigarette cases worth Rs 10000
He is thus entitled to be released
Petitioner No 16 Makhan Lal Saha
This petitioner was detained by an order dated March 23 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds were supplied to him on which he made a representation which was sent to the Advisory Board
After hearing him personally and considering all the materials the Advisory Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the original order of detention on July 29 1968
An examination of the  grounds shows that they relate mostly and are relevant to the head  maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community
144 For instance ground No 1 i is that on March 28 1968 the petitioner together with his associate committed theft of over head traction wires including contact wire disrupting the train services in Bongaon Section for more than 7 hours
The grounds may have been relevant to the other head but none of them appears to be relevant to maintenance of public order
It is somewhat surprising and altogether incomprehensible how any District Magistrate or even the Government could have missed seeing that the detention of this petitioner might have been justified under the head maintenance of supplies and services essential to the com munity but not the maintenance of public order
Therefore the detention order cannot be sustained and must be set aside
Petitioner No 17 Sk
Yunus Ali
This petitioner was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate Howrah on March 7 1968 under section 32 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
He was supplied the grounds and he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board
The Board heard him personally and made a report that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on July 3 1968
The grounds suffer from the same infirmity as in the cases of petitioners Nos 7 and 10
For instance ground No 1 b is  That on 12 3 67 at about 06 00 hrs
 you and your associates showed ugly gesture and posture to some women vendors of vegetables in platform No 6 of Uluberia Rly
Station and started whistling in mouth on seeing those women
RPF head Rakshak K C Chandra of Santragachi Crime Branch objected to such indecent behaviour towards women by you all when Shri Chandra was physically assaulted with slaps by you and was threatened with dire consequences by you and your associates
 The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 18 Gaddu Ghosh
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate Malda dated June 3 1968 made under section 3 2 of the Act with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
The grounds were supplied to him and he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board
The Board after hearing him personally and considering all the materials before it expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of his detention
Practically all the grounds 145 do not appear to be relevant to public order
Ground No 2 a is typical and may be reproduced  That on the midnight of 21 7 67 you grazed your 17 heads of cattle on maize plants in the land of Amal Roy of Kbasbari P section English Bazar
You threatened Amal Roy with further mischief for impounding your cattle His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 19 Ratanlal Kairi
This petitioner was de tained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated April 19 1968 his detention being considered necessary in order to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was referred to the Advisory Board which considered it along with the other material and expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
The Government made an order on July 10 1968 confirming the order of detention
The grounds have been perused by us and they appear to be relevant
The activities which are mentioned therein show that they are of such a nature that they relate to public order
We would therefore decline the prayer for setting aside the order of detention
Petitioner No 20 Farid Ali Naskar
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated July 30 1968 Made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which considered it along with the other materials but made a report against him
The Government thereupon confirmed the order of detention on September 19 1968
We have seen the grounds of detention and they appear to relate mostly to removal of rice bags in a clandestine manner
These activities might have some relevance to the head maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community but by no stretch of reasoning can they be regarded as relevant to public order
The detention of the petitioner therefore is set aside
Petitioner No 23 Sk Makbul
The petitioner was detained by the order dated March 8 1968 made by the District Magistrate Howrah under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds of his detention he made a representation to the Advisory Board which after considering the same and giving 146 him a personal hearing reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order
The grounds disclose the same infirmity as in other cases eg Petitioner Nos 7 and 10
Ground No 1 a is typical and may be reproduced  That on 10 2 67 at about 2150 hrs
you and your associates threatened RPF Head Rakshak Prakash Chandra Mitra of CID Kharagpur at Andul Railway Station with stabbing when Shri Mitra objected to your passing of indecent remarks at a lady passenger Consequently the detention order is set aside
Petitioner No 25 Uday Chand Namadas
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate Jalpaiguri dated the 11 th July 1968 made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds he made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board
The Board gave a personal hearing and after considering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order
Ground No 1 is altogether vague and may be reproduced  That you have been for a long time engaged in anti social illegal and high handed criminal activities and in the course of such activities you have on different occasions held out threats to different persons and that you have associated yourself with anti social elements
Whenever the peace loving citizens questioned your bona fide and protested against your activities and whenever they offered themselves as witnesses to your activities you threatened to burn down their houses
 The detention of this petitioner cannot be sustained because of the existence of the above ground which is so vague that the petitioner could not possibly have made any representation with regard to it
In view of our previous decisions referred to his detention is set aside
Petitioner No 26
Abdul Bari Karikar
This petitioner was detained by the order made by the District Magistrate Murshidabad on July 6 1968 under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that the detention was necessary in order to prevent the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which was considered by it
The Board after giving a personal hearing and considering all the materials expressed an opinion that there was sufficient cause for detention
147 The Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on September 12 1968
We have read the grounds and we consider that some of them are so irrelevant that it is incomprehensible how any order of detention could have been made on those grounds
For instance ground No 1 is On 26 8 65 you were committed to trial before the court under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on a charge of deceitfully misappropriating the cycle belonging to Bishu Khan of village Chonya Pathan Para Ground No 4 is equally irrelevant
It has been stated that On 19 5 67 at about 730 am you threatened Karim Sheikh of village Chonya Pathan Para with assault as he had instituted a case against you
 If such grounds can be considered to be relevant to public order it would be open to the authorities to detain citizens without a trial for such petty matters as have been mentioned in these grounds
Moreover the first ground is also not reasonably proximate in time
It relates to some incident which happened in the year 1965 whereas the detention order was made on July 6 1968
The detention of the petitioner cannot possibly be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 27 Nagendra Nath Saha
This petitioner was detained by an order dated April 19 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 3 2 of the Act the grounds of detention being the prevention of activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On July 10 1968 the Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention order
Two of the grounds may be reproduced  2 c That your complicity transpired during investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No 181 dt
26 3 65 us 379 IPC and you were reasonably suspended in the case
d That your complicity transpired during investigation of Sealdah GRPS Case No 180 dt
26 3 65 us 379 IPC and you were reasonably suspected in the case
 These cannot possibly have any relevance to maintenance of public order the proper implications of which expression have been fully discussed in the decisions of this Court including the recent decision in Pushkar Mookherjee  Ors
vs The State of 148 West Bengal1
The petitioner s detention cannot therefore be upheld and it is hereby set aside  Petitioner No 28 Habibullah Khan
This petitioner was detained by an order dated February 17 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which expressed an opinion in favour of his detention
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the detention on April 17 1968
We have perused the grounds of detention which do not relate to public order for instance one of the grounds If iv is to the following effect  that on 27 12 67 at about 0330 hrs  you and your associates committed theft of signalling and telecommunication materials from location box No L 60 worth about Rs 3000 His detention is consequently set aside
Petitioner No 29
Naba Kumar Ghosh
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated July 13 1968 made under section 32 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain the petitioner in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
Ms representation was considered by the Advisory Board which made a representation that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On September 19 1968 the detention order was confirmed by the Government
Some of the grounds are not at all relevant to maintenance of public order for instance ground No 1 ii is That on 1 3 68 at about 0200 hrs
 you and your associate Ram Nehore Kouri were seen to conceal your presence by the side of a wagon standing at Chitpur yard with a view to commit theft from standing wagons
Being chased you and your associate were arrested by the 1 on duty RPF staff and prosecuted
 The detention of the petitioner cannot be upheld and is set aside
Petitioner No 30 Abdul Main Mirza
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate Howrah dated March 7 1968 on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On June 12 1968 the Government confirmed the detention order
Most of the grounds are not relevant 1  149 to the maintenance of public order
For instance ground No 1 a is  That on 24 2 67 at about 2126 hrs
you and your associates abused CIB Head Rakshak 3646 Hara Kumar Mukherjee of Shalimar and also threatened him with dire consequences at Andul Rly
Station when Shri Mukherjee objected to the passing of indecent remarks at a lady passenger of 358 Dn
Midnapur Howrah Passenger train
 The detention of this petitioner cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 31 Nripen Chakraborty
This petitioner was detained by an order made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas on April 4 1968 on the ground that his detention was necessary in order to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which on considering the same with other material reported that there was sufficient cause for the detention
The detention order was consequently confirmed by the Government on June 12 1968
Most of the grounds do not appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order
Ground No ii may be reproduced  That on 7 10 66 you pulled the alarm chain of the train at Bongaon Ranaghat Section while you were bringing rice for sale from Ranaghat to Bongaon without having booked them and without having any ticket His detention cannot therefore be upheld and it is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 33 Nanda Kishore Rabi Das
This petitioner was detained by an order dated April 25 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
He made a representation to the Advisory Board which after considering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
The detention order was consequently confirmed by the Government of West Bengal on July 2 1968
The grounds for detention in the case of this petitioner appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order
He has apparently been acting with a large number of associates and committing acts which could have led to disturbance of public order
His detention is therefore upheld
Petitioner No 34 Samiron Sarkar
This petitioner was de tained by an order dated August 2 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary to prevent him from acting in any 150 manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on October 9 1968
His case is similar to that of many others inasmuch as most of the grounds are not relevant to the maintenance of public order
By way of example ground No 1 ii is reproduced That on 30 9 67 at about 2100 hrs
you with your associates Amal Karali Bapu Tripti and others forced Shri Dulal Chandra Kundu Abdul Jabbar and Gobinda Das Roy Choudhury of Barisha to go to the shop of Nilan Maity inside Sakher Bazar and you forcibly took away Rs 65 from the pocket of Gobinda Das Roy Choudhury one wrist watch a gold ring and cash Rs 18 from Abdul Jabbar and Rs 70 and 20 packets of cigarettes from Dulal Chandra Kundu
 His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside
Petitioner No 35 Ashwini Kumar Karmakar
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30 1968 of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas made under section 32 of the Act the detention being considered necessary with a view to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which after considering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on September 19 1968
The activities which have been alleged in the grounds are again of at type which cannot be relevant to public order
For instance ground No 1 c which is in these terms  That on 6 10 67 at about 0630 hrs
you and your associates were seen to remove sugar bags from a sealed wagon of a goods train and to despatch the same by hand pulling car while the train stopped at Bagmari Rly
Bridge for red signal
 His detention cannot be upheld and is set aside
Petitioner No 36 Sri Panchanan Das
The District Magis trate 24 Parganas made an order dated June 13 1968 directing under section 32 of the Act petitioner s detention with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was sent to the Advisory Board which after considering all the materials reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Gov ernment confirmed the detention order on August 29 1968
Most of the grounds are not at all relevant to the maintenance of public order see for instance ground No 1 c which is in these terms  151 That on 18 2 68 at about 1130 am you and your associates were found to remove rice from a running Railway wagon by breaking seal of the wagon door at Bagmari Rly
pool and overhead Chitpur Bridge
 His detention cannot be upheld
Petitioner No 37 Indrajit Debnath
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated May 23 1968 made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board along with the other materials
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention on August 1 1968
Most of the grounds contain allegations of theft of overhead traction wire
They cannot possibly be relevant to maintenance of public order
The detention order cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 38
Surjit Singh
This petitioner was detained by the order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 3 2 of the Act on April 4 1968 the detention being considerd necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board along with the other materials and the Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the detention order on June 29 1968
Some of the grounds cannot possibly relate to maintenance of public order
Ground No 1 viii is in these terms  That on 16 2 68 you fled away from the R G Kar Hospital while you were undergoing treatment under police guard His detention consequently cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 39 Badal Pal
This petitioner was detained by an order dated July 30 1968 made by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 32 of the Act his detention being considered necessary to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board with other materials which reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government confirmed the order of detention
Some of the grounds have absolutely no relevance to the maintenance of public order
See for instance grounds Nos 1 d e and f
His detention cannot therefore be upheld and is set aside
152 Petitioner No 40 Sona Karmakar 
This petitioner was de tained by an order of the District Magistrate dated July 30 1968 made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that his detention was necessary for preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board with the other materials but the Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On September 18 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention
Some of the grounds cannot possibly be regarded as relevant to maintenance of public order
See grounds Nos 1 b and c
His detention cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 42 Jaganath Goila
This petitioner was de tained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board together with the other materials
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On October 7 1968 the detention order was confirmed
A perusal of the grounds shows that most of the grounds are not relevant to maintenance of public order and in this connection reference may be made to ground Nos 1 ii and iii
The detention of this petitioner cannot therefore be upheld and is hereby set aside
Petitioner No 43 Shyamal Pal
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas made unders
3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds of detention the petitioner made a representation which was considered by the Advisory Board together with the other materials
The Board reported that there was sufficient cause for his detention
On May 17 1968 the Government confirmed the order of detention
We have examined the grounds of detention
Most of them do not relate to or are relevant to maintenance of public order
The activities mentioned cover acts of theft robbery etc
but they cannot be considered relevant for the purpose of public order in view of our previous decisions
The detention is consequently set aside
Petitioner No 44 Suvranghshu Mitra
This petitioner was detained by an order dated April 20 1968 of the District Magis 153 trate 24 Parganas made under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was forwarded to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on June 28 1968
Some of the grounds are wholly irrelevant to maintenance of public order
For instance ground No 1 i is That on 11 10 67 at about 1145 hrs
you assaulted Shri Narayanchandra Das of 6A Baikuntha Ghose Road Calcutta 42 with fists and blows
 He is therefore entitled to be released
Petitioner No 45
Madan Mohan Mandal
This petitioner was detained by an order of the District Magistrate 24 Parganas dated January 16 1968 on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
His representation was considered by the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
Thereupon the Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on May 1 1968
Some of the grounds of detention do not appear to be relevant to maintenance of public order
See for instance ground No 1 iv
Consequently he is entitled to be released
Petitioner No 46
Rangalal Debnath
This petitioner was detained by an order dated March 16 1968 passed by the District Magistrate 24 Parganas under section 3 2 of the Act on the ground that it was necessary to detain him in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
On receiving the grounds he made a representation to the Advisory Board which gave an opinion that there was sufficient cause for his detention
The Government of West Bengal confirmed the order of detention on June 10 1968
His case is similar to others inasmuch as most of the grounds are not relevant to the maintenance of public order
See for instance ground No 1 iv
The detention of the petitioner therefore cannot be upheld and is hereby set aside
GC Petitions allowed


Summary:
The petitioners were detained under the 
They filed a petition for Habeas Corpus under article 32 of the Constitution
The Court considered their cases individually in the light of the grounds of detention supplied to them
HELD i If some of the grounds which are given are irrelevant the order of detention cannot be upheld because the court cannot predicate what the subjective satisfaction of the authority would have been on the exclusion of those reasons
139 H Dwarka Das Bhatia vs The State of Jammu  Kashmir and Pushkar Mukherjee vs State of West Bengal   applied
ii The grounds supplied to most of the petitioners were not relevant to the maintenance of public order 
The contravention of any law always affects order but before it can be said to affect public order it must affect the public or the community at large
A mere disturbance of law and order leading to disorder is not necessarily sufficient for action under the Act but a disturbance which will affect public order can alone justify detention under that head
141 B C iii Citizens must not be detained under the Act for petty matters and the grounds must be reasonably proximate in time
141 D