- (1.)THIS Rule was issued on an application under section 491 Criminal Procedure Code, filed by the detenu, Goutam Goswami, praying for a writ and/or order and/or direction in the nature of nabeas corpus and is directed against the District Magistrate birbhum, the Superintendent, Dum Dum central Jail and the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Writers' Building, Calcutta.
(2.)THE applicant before us has been detained under section 3 (1) (a) (iii)of the Maintenance of Internal security Act (Act 26 of 1971) 1971-subsequently corrected as being under section 3 (1) (a) (ii) of the said Act, on a corrigendum served on the detenu. The order of the detention being No. 469-C dated Suri the 20th January, 1972 was passed by Shri M. Gupta, District Magistrate, birbhum and by a further order no. 470-0 dated Sun the 20th January 1972 passed by the same learned Magistrate, the detenu was directed to be detained in the Suri Jail. The detenu was arrested on 1. 3. 72 and the grounds of detention which are two in number, were served on him. A copy of the order of detention is annexed to the petition, being marked as Annexure 'a' and is as follows: "government of West Bengal order no. 469-C dated Suri, the 20. 1. 1972. Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Goutam goswami, S/o Rajat Kumar Goswami of 84, Chittaranjan Avenue, Cal-12 at present of Suri town, P. S. Suri Dist. Birbhum, that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do; now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1)read with sub-section (2), of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971), I hereby make this order directing that the said shri Goutam Goswami be detained. Given under my hand and seal of office sd/- M. Gupta, 20. 1. 72 district Magistrate, Birbhum a copy of the grounds of detention, is also annexed to the petition marked as Annexure 'a' and is as follows : "government of West Bengal office of the District Magistrate, birbhum no. 471-C Dated 20. 1. 72 grounds under sub-section (1) of section of the Maintenance of Internal security Act, 1971 for detention under sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 thereof. To shri Goutam Goswami, s/o Rajat Kumar Goswami, of 34, Chittaranjan Avenue, calcutta-12, at present of Suri town, P. S. Suri, District-Birbhum. You are being detained in pursuance of a detention order made in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Maintenance of Internal Security act, 1971, on the ground that you have been acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community as evidenced by the particulars given below : 1. On 24. 7. 71, you and some of your active supporters compelled the other employees of State Electricity Board suri to stop supply of power by persuasion, threat and coercive means resulting total suspension of electric power supply for hours together on 24. 7. 71, as protest against the rounding up of some extremist elements including Gadadhar mondal, an employee of SEB, Suri. This sudden stoppage of current supply for a considerable hours adversely affected the services like hospital, water supply etc. of Suri Town. 2. On 4. 11. 71 evening, you and some of your followers carried on secret campaign at Suri town by approaching loyal willing and sincere S. E. B. workers for giving their unstinted cooperation even to the extent of sabotage, if necessary to make a success of the 24 hours token strike on 5. 11. 71 commencing from 06. 00 hrs. over various demands. In case of any reluctance from, such workers, a stern warning was also given to them (willing workers) with a threatening by you and your associates which resulted in success of the token strike. You are hereby informed that you may make a representation to the State government against the detention order and that such representation shall be addressed to the Assistant Secretary, home (Special) Department, Government of west Bengal, and forwarded through the Superintendent of the Jail in which you have been detained. Under section 10 of the Maintenance of Internal security Act, 1971, your case may be placed before the Advisory Board. You are also informed that under section 11 of the Maintenance of Internal security Act, 1971, the Advisory board shall, if you desire to be so heard, hear you in person and if you desire to be so heard by the Advisory Board, you should intimate such desire in your representation to the State Government. Sd/- M. Gupta district Magistrate birbhum 20. 1. 72 it will appear from the order of detention stated above, before the corrigendum was served, that the detention was "with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or the maintenance of public order". It further appears from the grounds of detention that the detenu was "acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. "
(3.)MR. Parimal Dasgupta, Advocate appearing in support of the Rule, on behalf of the appellant, made a submission consisting of 4 dimensions. The first dimension is that the order of detention disclosed that the satisfaction of the detaining authority was on the ground of the security of the State or maintenance of public order'' and as such it gives rise to the reasonable conclusion that the detaining authority did not seriously apply his mind to the question whether the alleged activities fell under one head or the other but merely produced mechanically the language of section 3 (1) (a) (iii) of Act 26 of 1971. The second dimension of Mr. Dasgupta's contention is that the grounds stated in the order of detention and the grounds of detention are contradictory inasmuch as one is for acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State and maintenance of public order and the other is for maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The next branch of contention is that the corrigenda served on the detent later on, purporting to correct the grounds mentioned in the order of detention and also in the preamble to the grounds of detention, alter materially the said grounds on the basis whereof the detaining authority was satisfied before passing the order of detention. The fourth and the last dimension of the arguments is that even if the corrigendum be given effect to in the preamble to the grounds of detention the same would still be in clear conflict with the nature of the incidents mentioned in the two grounds of detention, which come under a different head, particularly those in ground No. 1 and would establish thereby the non-application of the mind on the part of the detaining authority.