(V. Ramaswami and I.D. Dua, JJ.)
Sudhir Kumar Samaddar ____________________________ Petitioner;
v.
State of West Bengal _____________________________ Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 302 of 1969†, decided on October 9, 1969
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. Ramaswami, J.:—
1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule nisi from this Court calling upon the respondent, State of West Bengal to show cause why a writ in the nature of habeas corpus should not be issued quashing the order of detention made against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, on 13-6-1969 which reads as follows:
“Whereas I am satisfied with respect to the person known as Shri Sudhir Samaddar @ Prince s/o late Sudhangsu Kumar Samaddar of No. 2, Sett Bagan Lane, P.S. Dum Dum, District 24 Parganas that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community, it is necessary so to do, I therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, make this order directing that the said Shri Sudhir Samaddar @ Prince be detained.
Given under my hand and seal of office.
sd/-
R.N. Sen Gupta,
District Magistrate, 24-Parganas
13-6-1969.”
2. Cause has been shown by the learned counsel for the respondent, on behalf of the State of West Bengal. The main ground taken on behalf of the petitioner is that the representation was made to the State Government on 26-6-1969, but it was considered by the State Government only on 22-7-1969 after a delay of about four weeks.
3. It was argued that this case fell within the principle of the decisions of this Court in Avijit Roy Chowdhury v. State of W.B.1 and Khairul Haque v. State of W.B.2 But the counsel for the respondent pointed out that the representation was actually forwarded by the Superintendent of Jail to the State Government on 7-7-1969. It was rejected by the State Government on 22-7-1969 and the contention was that the time taken was not unreasonable.
4. In our opinion the contention of the respondent is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The time taken by the State Government in considering the representation was actually two weeks and the present case is not governed by the principle laid down by this Court in the decisions already referred to. No case has been made out on behalf of the petitioner for the grant of a writ to set aside the order of detention.
5. It is necessary to add that the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court on similar grounds and it has been dismissed on merits by the High Court.
6. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
———
† Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus
1 Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 274 & 276 of 1969 decided on 16-9-1969
2 Writ Petition No. 246 of 1969 decided on 10-9-1969
