Case: Kanu Biswas Vs. State Of West Bengal

2. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate on November 13, 1971. The petitioner was arrested in pursuance of the detention order on November 14, 1971, and was served the same day with the order as well as the grounds of detention together with vernacular translation thereof. On November 18, 1971, the District Magistrate sent report to the State Government about the passing of the detention order along with the grounds of detention and other necessary particulars. The State Government considered the matter and approved the detention order on November 24, 1971. Necessary report was also sent on that day by the State Government to the Central Government. On December 13, 1971, the State Government placed the case of the petitioner before the Advisory Board. In the meanwhile, on December 12, 1971, the State Government received a representation of the petitioner. The representation was considered by the State Government and was rejected on January 11, 1972. The representation was thereafter forwarded to the Advisory Board. The Board, after considering the material placed before it, including the petitioners representation, and after hearing the petitioner in person, sent its report to the State Government on January 14, 1972. Opinion was expressed by the Board that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the petitioner. On February 2, 1972, the State Government confirmed the order for the detention of the petitioner. Communication about the confirmation of the order was thereafter sent to the petitioner.3. Affidavit of Shri B. Mukhopadhya, District Magistrate of 24-Parganas, who passed the impugned order, has been filed in opposition to the petition. Mr. Bagga has argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, while the State has been represented by Mr. Chakravarti.

Reasoning:
10. As against the above solitary decision, Mr. Chakravarti on behalf of the respondent-State has referred to the principle laid down in the case of Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal (supra), as well as in the case of Nagendra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal (supra). Apart from those two cases, we find that in the case of Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and Others v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1972 SC 840   : 1972 Cri LJ 657), the allegation against the detenu was that he along with other associates committed robbery in respect of a fan and a watch at the point of dagger in a running train, and this created disturbance of public order. Contention was raised that the act of the detenu and his associates related only to law and order and not to public order. This contention was repelled and it was observed that the innocent passengers would be terror-stricken by the acts of the detenu and his associates. Another incident which was referred to in that case related to throwing of bombs on a shop. The bombs exploded and as a result of the panic so caused in the locality, all the shops and houses around the place were closed. The above ground was held by this Court to be germane to the disturbance of public order, In the case of Nandlal Roy (supra), the ground of detention recited that the detenu and his associates while committing theft of rice from a wagon threw bombs upon the members of the Railway Protection Force. One member of the Railway Protection Force was injured. The explosion of the bombs was stated to have created panic in the station area and the adjoining locality. It was held that the activity of the petitioner created not merely a question of the maintenance law and order but created a disturbance which would be comprehended by the expression "order publique". The detention order was consequently upheld.11. In S.K. Kedar v. State of West Bengal (W.P. No. 35 of 1972, decided on May 2, 1972) ((1970) 3 SCR 360   : (1970) 1 SCC 149  ), the allegation against the detenu was that he and his associates while removing railway material charged bombs ballast upon R.P.F. party as a consequence of which the members of R.P.F. party fired in self-defence. The activity of the petitioner was considered to be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the detention order was upheld.12. The facts of the present case are much more akin to those of Tapan Kumar Mukherjee and Other v. State of West Bengal (supra). The past activities of the petitioner as revealed in the grounds of detention, in our opinion, showed a propensity to disturb public order. The authority concerned, in the circumstances, could have validly made the order for the detention of the petitioner to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.