No 39 of 1972
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights
section Lakshminarasu for the petitioner
G L Mukhoty and Sukumar Basu for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J
The District Magistrate Burdwan passed the order impugned in this petition on July 14 1971 directing the 715 petitioner s detention under sub sec
1 read with sub sec
3 of sec
3 of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities Act being President s Act XIX of 1970 on the ground that such detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
In pursuance of the order the petitioner was arrested on August 6 1971 when he was furnished as required by the Act
the grounds of detention
There is no dispute that consequent upon the passing of the said order the Government of West Bengal and the other relevant authorities under the Act duly took all consequential steps such as the reporting to and obtaining the Government s order of approval reporting to the Central Government disposal of the petitioner s representation referring the petitioner s case to the Advisory Board and obtaining its opinion etc within the respective times prescribed by the Act
Two grounds questioning the validity of the said order and the detention thereunder were however urged by Mr Lakshminarasu appearing for the petitioner amicus curiae
The first was that the first ground in the grounds of detention was irrelevant and therefore vitiated the entire order
The second was that there was undue delay in the confirmation by the State Government of the detention order and the continuance of detention thereunder after the expiry of three months of detention
The first ground in the grounds of detention runs as follows That on 7 2 71 at 13 30 hours you and your associates had been to the house of Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh of Ranchi Dhowrah Police Station Kulti and asked him to rub out the anti naxalite slogans written on the wall of his house
Being refused you threatened to kill him
Your such act terrorised the common public and as such they could not pursue the normal avocations of life
Moreover it disturbed public order
 The question is whether threat to kill the said Bibhuti Bhusan Ghosh amounted to  acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in sec
3 2 d of the Act
d amongst other things provides that committing any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term extending to seven years or more where the commission of such offence disturbs or is likely to disturb public order would fall within tile said definition of the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
506 of the Penal Code provides that threat to 716 cause death or grievous hurt or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or both
That being so the offence said to have been committed by the petitioner clearly was one of the offences enumerated in cl
d of sec
3 2 of the Act
Ground No 1 further alleges that the threat to kill the said Ghosh administered to him on account of his refusal to rub out the anti naxalite slogans written on the wall of his house terror ised the common public and as such they could not pursue the normal avocations of life and furthermore disturbed public order
This assertion coupled with the satisfaction of the other requirement of cl
d of sec
3 2 namely the committal of the offence of threatening to kill would bring the act in question within the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order as defined in sec
3 2
It cannot therefore be argued that ground No 1 was extraneous or irrelevant to the objects set out in sec
3 of the Act and in respect of which a valid order of detention could be made under the Act
The second contention also is not such as ran be sustained
There is no dispute that the petitioner was arrested on August 6 1971 and the order of confirmation and the impugned detention thereunder beyond the period of three months was passed by the State Government on October 28 1971 that is within three months from the date of his arrest
Counsel however argued that though the decision of this Court have laid down that such an order of confirmation has to be passed within three months from the date of arrest the appropriate Government has to pass such an order as soon as possible and cannot delay in doing so until the expiry of three months
In Deb Sadhan Roy vs West Bengal1 a case under the President s Act XIX of 1970 this Court laid down that it was essential that the appropriate Government should take positive action on the report of the Advisory Board which action alone would determine whether the detention was to be terminated or continued that it would therefore prima facie appear that action should be taken immediately after the receipt of the opinion of the Board or at any rate within three months from the date a person was detained and that failure to confirm or extend the period within three months would result in the detention becoming illegal the moment the three months period elapsed without any such confirmation This decision thus makes it clear that the legality of a detention order or the detention thereunder would not be affected it an order of confirmation is passed before the expiry of three 11972 1 SCC 308 717 months from the date of detention
Similarly in Ujjal Mandal vs West Bengal1 Mathew J speaking for the Court observed at page 459 of the report as follows To put the matter in a nut shell  the State Government has power under the Act to detain a person without trial beyond a period of three months  but limited to a period of on year
That power the State Government may exercise on receipt of the opinion of the Board that there is sufficient cause for the detention
When the State Government receives that opinion it has still the option to exercise the power and to continue the detention beyond the period of three months or not
Confirmation is the exercise of the power to continue the detention after the expiry of three months
Unless that power is exercised within the period of three months from the date of detention the detention after the expiry of that period would be without the authority of the law
 Therefore if the order of confirmation has been passed as it has been done in the present case within three months  time from the date of arrest neither the legality of the detention order nor the continued detention thereunder is affected
Both the contentions raised by counsel thus having failed the petition also must fail and is consequently dismissed
VPS Petition dismissed
1 1972 ISCC456


Summary:
Section 32 d of the West Bengal Prevention of Violent Activities  Act 1970 amongst other things provides that the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to 7 years of more where the commission of such offence disturbs or is likely to disturb public order would be within the definition of the expression acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order
In pursuance of an order under a 31 and 3 of the Act the petitioner was arrested on August 6 1971 with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order One of the grounds furnished to him was that he threatened to kill a person on account of his refusal to rub out the anti naxalite slogan written on the wall of his house that the threat terrorised the common public and as such they could not pursue their normal avocations and that he disturbed public order
The State Government confirmed the order on October 28 1971 after receipt of the opinion of the Advisory Board Dismissing the petition under article 32 Challenging the order of detention
HELD  1 Under section 506 IPC a threat to commit an offence punish able with death or imprisonment for life shall be punish able with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years
Hence the ground furnished was not extraneous or irrelevant since the petitioner
had committed an offence enumerated in section 32 d and there was disturbance of public order
716A C 2 There was no delay in passing the order of confirmation since it was passed before the expiry of three months from the date of detention
716H Deb Sadhan Rov vs West Bengal and Ujjal Manda vs West Bengal  followed