V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.@mdashThe petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of detention passed on December 22,1971 u/s 3(1) and (3), read with Section 5(a), of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (Act 26 of 1971). The grounds on which the District Magistrate relied were communicated to the detenu and they relate to maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The three instances, all of 1971, relate to removal of rice from lorries carrying food grains on F.C. I. account, in Calcutta.
2. The petitioner was arrested on December 12, 1971, on which date grounds of detention were also served on him, as required by the statute. The Government was informed which approved the detention and communicated the factum of the detention to the Central Government. The representation of the detenu was received on January 14, 1972 and was considered by the Government on January 21, 1972, which rejected the representation. The Advisory Board to which the representation was forwarded also considered it but recommended the continuance of the detention. Finally, the State Government confirmed the detention on March 16, 1973.
3. The major ground of attack was based on the absence of any definite time,-limit for the duration of the detention, since, according to the petitioner, "till expiry of Defence of India Act, 1971" did not satisfy the Constitutional condition. However, this point does not survive now, having been overruled by a decision of this Court in Fagu Shah v. State of West Bengal Writ Petns. Nos. 41 etc. of 1973; judgment delivered on 20-12-1973 =. Reported in(sic).
4. We are satisfied that the grounds relied on have a rational relation to the subjective satisfaction regarding the prejudicial activities imputed to the petitioner. We are also satisfied that no valid ground has been made out on the basis of lack of proximity between the incidents relied on and the order made. Nor is there any infirmity in the nature of the communication of the grounds to the detenu, in answer to which he had a Constitutional right to make a representation. While we affirm the decisions of this Court rendered in
