Sarkaria, J. - (1.)Magan Gope, petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Purulia under Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order states that the detention has been made to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
(2.)The impugned order is founded on two grounds which run as under:
"1. On 1-11-73 at about 09-00 hrs, you along with your associates attacked Home Guard No. 900 Aswini Mohanti and 3 others of Layadi Home Guard Camp who were on cordoning patrol near Kashipur village, P. S. Joypur close to Bihar border when they arrested you with rice, Dalda, Kerosene Oil, wheat, which were being carried by you and threatened them with death and snatched away the seized commodities from their custody.

In consequence of your said activity which comes within the purview of sections 143/186/332/506, I.P.C. and 7 (i) (a) (ii) of Act X of 1955, the maintenance of Public Order was disturbed.

The said activity thus attract sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971).

2. On 6-11-73 at about 19.00 hours, you along with your associates attacked the investigating Police Officer and his Police Party with deadly weapons and attempted to resist your arrest while they went to Sidhi village under Joypur P. S., District Purulia to investigate a case. You and one of your associates were arrested with deadly weapons.

These violent and dangerous activities on your part created terror and panic amongst the local people who were over-awed and thus you have disturbed Public Order.

In consequence of your said activity which comes within the purview of Sections 148/149, 307/506/186 I.P.C. the maintenance of public order was disturbed.

The said activities thus attract Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971)."

(3.)The return has been filed by the District Magistrate who had passed the impugned order in which it is averred:
"I say that I made the detention order after being satisfied from the materials on records in support of the grounds of detention in question that with a view to preventing the said detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order, it was necessary to detain him...... I further say that the grounds furnished to the said detenu are the grounds on which I based my satisfaction for making the order of detention taking those grounds separately and collectively..."