SHYAM AMBALAL SIROYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the brother of Virendra Ambalal Siroya who was detained by an order of detention dated 31-8-1979 issued by Additional Secretary to the Government of India under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The detenu was served with the grounds of detention on 5-9-1979. The counsel for the detenu made an application on 17-9-1979 for supply of documents, and statements recorded and relied on in the grounds of detention. Before the documents were supplied, an incomplete representation was made by the detenu on 22-9-1979. The documents were supplied on 25-9-1979, 27-9-1979 and 3-10-1979. The detenu again made a second representation on 5-10-1979 and requested that the order of detention may be revoked by the Central Government.

(2.) Mr. A. K. Sen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the representation requesting the Central Government to order the revocation under S. 11 of the Act was not forwarded by the detaining authority to the Central Government and as such the detention is illegal. In the memorandum of grounds in his writ petition at paragraph XIV the detenu submitted that, he made representation to the Central Government and that the Central Government had not considered the representation at all. In paragraph XV the detenu contended that the second representation was an application for revocation under Section 11 of the Act wherein he specifically requested that the Central Government should revoke the order. The said representation was not considered by the Central Government. It was submitted that non-consideration of the representation by the Central Government vitiated the detention order. In reply the detaining authority stated in paragraph 15 as follows:-

(3.) It is clear from the statement that the representation was not forwarded to the Central Government. The plea on behalf of the detaining authority is that merely because the representation was not considered by the Central Government, the detention order would not be vitiated.