Case: Shri Keshab Chandra Das Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Others

2. The petitioner was arrested on December 12, 1971, on which date grounds of detention were also served on him, as required by the statute. The Government was informed which approved the detention and communicated the factum of the detention to the Central Government. The representation of the detenu was received on January 14, 1972 and was considered by the Government on January 21, 1972, which rejected the representation. The Advisory Board to which the representation was forwarded also considered it but recommended the continuance of the detention. Finally, the State Government confirmed the detention on March 16, 1973.3.The major ground of attack was based on the absence of any definitefor the duration of the detention, since, according to the petitioner, "till expiry of Defence of India Act, 1971" did not satisfy the constitutional condition. However, this point does not survive now, having been overruled by a decision of this Court in Fagu Shah v. State of West Bengal, Writ Petns. Nos. 41 etc. of 1973; judgment delivered onin AIR 1974 SC 613   = 1974 Cri LJ 486).

Reasoning: 4. We are satisfied that the grounds relied on have a rational relation to the subjective satisfaction regarding the prejudicial activities imputed to the petitioner. We are also satisfied that no valid ground has been made out on the basis of lack of proximity between the incidents relied on and the order made. Nor is there any infirmity in the nature of the communication of the grounds to the detenu, in answer to which he had a constitutional right to make a representation. While we affirm the decisions of this Court rendered in Shaik Hanif v. State of West Bengal, W. P. Nos. 1679 of 1973 etc. Judgment= (reported in AIR 1974 SC 679   = 1974 Cri LJ 606) and Bhut Nath v. State of West Bengal W. P. No. 1456 of 1973 Judgment= (reported in AIR 1974 SC 806  =1974 Cri LJ 690) we are satisfied that there is no substance in the contention of the counsel. Shri Maheswari, appearing as amicus curiae that there has been withholding of any material grounds which had influenced the authorities.