9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1971) by the District Magistrate Howrah with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The order for detention was made on March 6, 1972 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner was arrested on March 23, 1972. The petitioner thereupon sent this petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus through jail. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Buoy in river Hooghly as a result of which the movement of vessels carrying essential commodities was disrupted. When the petition came up for hearing on February 26, 1974 we found that a period of nine months had elpased between the incident of June 7, 1971 and the order of detention which was made on March 6, 1972. As the delay of nine months in the making of the order for detention after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of supplies and services essential to the community. But in order to justify such an inference it is necessary to bear in mind that such past conduct or antecedent history should ordinarily be proximate in point of time and should have a rational connection with the conclusion that the detention of the person is necessary (see Shri Nagen Murmu v. The State of West Bengal . No doubt, it is bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akshman Khatik v. State of West Bengal (Writ Petition No. 344 of 1972, decided on February 26, 1974) held that a delay of seven months in making an order for detention after the incident which led to the making of that order was fatal. As the delay in the present case is for a longer period and no cogent explanation has been given for the delay, there is no escape from the conclusion that the dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
