P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
1. This is a Habeas Corpus petition challenging the order detaining the petitioner under Sub-section (1) read with Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970 (President's Act No. 19 of 1970) hereinafter called the Act. The District Magistrate of Howrah passed an order on 8-7-1971 for the detention of the petitioner and reported having passed such an order on the same day to the State Government. On 13-7-1971 the petitioner was arrested and on the same day the grounds of his detention with its vernacular translation was also served on him and he was informed that if he desires to be heard in person he should intimate that fact when he makes his representation. The State Government approved the making of the order on 19-7-1971. On the same day the State Government submitted a report with the necessary particulars as referred under Section 3(5) of the Act to the Central Government. On the 6th of August, 1971, the State Government received the petitioner's representation which was considered by the Government on 10-8-1971 and it was rejected. After this the case along with the representation of the detenu was sent to the Advisory Board on 11-8-1971 which reported to the Government on 17-9-1971 that there was sufficient cause for the petitioner's detention. The State Government confirmed the Order on 11-10-1971 and communicated it to the detenu on 15-11-1971.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate as well as the State Government were not satisfied that the petitioner should be detained, that the Advisory Board which under the provisions of the Act must consist of three members was not constituted as only one had signed the decision of the Advisory Board and the decision of the Advisory Board should not only be given within a period of 3 months but also the confirmation by the State Government should also be within that period which in this case, it is contended, has not been complied with.
3. In our view, none of these contentions are justified under the provisions of the Act, it is the detaining authority that has to be satisfied before an Order of detention is made. The Order passed by the District Magistrate clearly on the face of it shows that he was satisfied that with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public Order that he was being detained. The grounds served on him also show that the District Magistrate applied his mind. By an order of the Governor of West Bengal on 19-7-1971 under Sub-section (4) of Section 3, the order made by the District Magistrate on 8-7-1971 was approved. The provisions of the Act have, therefore, been complied within the period specified therein. On the second question viz. that the decision of the Board was not a decision by three members but only by one is equally untenable because it is based on a communication said to have been made by the Chairman alone. What is required under the Act is that the Board should consider the representation and must decide whether there are sufficient grounds for the detention of the petitioner which the Board did. We have perused the original file and found that it was considered by all the three and their decision to reject the representation and approve the detention of the petitioner was signed by all the three. It is, however, contended that the signature of the third member was undecipherable in that it looks as if it is just a line on the paper and, therefore that decision is not a decision by all the three members. This contention is for fetched because the signature is not just a stroke but appears to be a typical signature of that member.
4. The last contention has also no validity because what the provisions of the Act require is that the decision of the Board should be made within three months from the detention and not from the detention Order as is sought to be contended by learned Advocate. Even the decision of the Board is within three months so is the confirmation by the State Government. It is again faintly contended that the communication to the detenu should also be within three months from the date of the detention. We do not find that here is any justification for this submission under any provision of the Act. As long as the communication is made within a reasonable time, the detenu cannot complain.
In our view, the detention of the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity and accordingly this petition is dismissed.