M. Hidayatullah, C.J.
1. These are two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking writs of Habeas Corpus against the detention of the petitioners under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. The facts in these two petitions are practically the same. We shall take up first the petition of Bhrigunath Tewary (Writ Petition No. 332 of 1969). He was detained under the orders of the District Magistrate, Burdwan, passed on September 1, 1969 under Section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act. He was arrested a week later and the grounds were served on him the very same day. He made his representation which was rejected by the Government and later by the Advisory Board. His detention has now been confirmed and he petitions against his detention.
2. In the grounds which were furnished to him, 4 matters are stated. He was seen in the act of removing railway storesand materials on 5-1-1969 in a truck. Later, on 9-4-1969, he was associated in a raid on a railway siding and the raiding party stole railway stores and materials and carried them off in a truck. His name was being taken by his associatesand it was presumed that he was one of the raiders. On 9-8-1969 in the early hours of the morning, he was arrestedred-handed with a piece of brass with railway markings on it, which was serviceable railway material. Again, on 14-8-1969, two persons were arrested with some brass materials having railwaymarkings on them and they confessed that they were taking them to the petitionerfor sale. In the affidavit which has been sworn, it has been stated that the petitioner is a dangerous person who indulgesin stealing railway stores and equipments essential for the running of trains andmaintenance of railway communications, and by his activities has caused great lossto the railway administration and inconvenience to the general public.
3. We have considered the matterfrom the ground of expedition which hasto be observed in disposing of representations etc., made by detenus. There isno evidence of any delay in this case.We have also considered it from thepoint of view of whether the grounds aregermane to the detention for maintenanceof services essential to the community.Affidavit shows that he is carrying onlarge-scale operations with a view tostealing railway stores and materials andthereby impairing the proper running oftrains and communications. This is nota case in which a man steals somethingwhich is discarded by the railways andconsidered to be unserviceable. He stealsserviceable and useful parts of railwayequipments and thereby prevents the proper operation of railway facilities to thepublic. His activities cannot be looked at as isolated incidents. They must be considered to be a part of an organised operation in which not only this petitioner but also the other petitioner before us participated. They were found carrying away railway property not in small quantities but in trucks. In these circumstances we cannot but hold that the grounds are relevant to the detention. The petition accordingly fails and will be dismissed.
4. As regards the remaining petitioner Ramlal Rajbhar (W. P. No. 347/69), it is sufficient to say that the grounds are identical. We see no reason to interfere in the case of this petitioner also. For the reasons we have already given, this petition also fails and will be dismissed.