B ALAMELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted

(2.) By an earlier order of this Court notice was issued in this matter for final disposal and accordingly we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties finally. The appellant is wife of one M.Balakrishnan who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by Joint Secretary of Tamil Nadu in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) (i) and 3(1) (iii) of COFEPOSA Act. The order of his detention is dated 17th February, 1993. The said order of detention was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Habeas Corpus Petn. No. 785 of 1994. That petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 18-8-1994. The present appeal is filed by special leave against the said order.

(3.) The detenu was supplied grounds of detention of even date when he was detained pursuant to the impugned detention order. The appellant had raised various contentions challenging the order of detention. The grounds raised by her in support of the petition did not find favour with the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed. In appeal amongst others one contention was placed in the fore-front in support of the appeal. The said ground was that constitutional right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution got infracted inasmuch as representation was made against the detention order on 4-5-1994 through the jail authorities and that was not forwarded to the Central Government till 22nd July, 1994. Consequently, the continued detention of the detenu has become illegal. In support of that contention reliance was placed before the High Court on the decision of this Court in the case of Jaiprakash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshehar, U. P., (1993) 1 Suppl. SCC 392. The High Court distinguished the said decision and held that the facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the detenu is an advocate and must be deemed to be aware of the need for clear-cut representation while in this case the representation was vague. The delay in sending the said representation to the Central Government had no fatal consequences on the continued detention of the detenu.