KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL UNION OF INDIA OTHERS UNION OF INDIA HANSABEN JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in SLP (C-1.) No. 282/94.

(2.) When an order for preventive detention is passed by an officer especially empowered to do so by the Central Government or the State Government, is the said officer required to consider the representation submitted by the detenu

(3.) This is the common question that arises for consideration in these appeals in the context of orders for preventive detention passed by officers especially empowered by the Central Government under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 [for short 'COFEPOSA Act'] and the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 [for short 'PIT NDPS Act']. There is divergence in the decisions of this Court on this question. In (Amir Shad Khan v. L. Hmingliana & others)1, 1991(4) S.C.C. 39, (decided by a Bench of three Judges), it has been held that where an officer of the State Government or the Central Government has passed any detention order and on receipt of a representation he is convinced that the detention needs to be revoked he can do so. In (State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Sushila Mafatlal Shah & others)2, 1988(4) S.C.C. 490 : 1988(4) Bom.C.R. 441 (S.C.), (decided by a Bench two Judges), a different view has been expressed. It has been held that if an order of detention is made by an officer specially empowered by the Central Government or a State Government the representation of the detenu is required to be considered only by the Central Government or the State Government and it is not required to be considered by the officer who had made the order.