PREM LATA SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an order dated April 26, 1997 made by the District Magistrate, Mathura (hereinafter referred to "the detaining authority") in exercise of his powers under Section 3(3) of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act' for short), Suresh Chander Sharma, a resident of Alwar Kunj in the city of Vrindavan, has been detained since May 5, 1997 with a view to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Against his detention he made a representation to the State Government on May 14, 1997 which was rejected on May 23, 1997. A copy of the said representation, along with parawise comments, was forwarded by the State Government on May 21, 1997 to the Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi for consideration. The Central Government also rejected the representation of the detenu on August 6, 1997. Thereafter, on August 22, 1997 the detenu made a representation to the Home Secretary, Government of India, through the Superintendent of Mathura Jail, where he is confined. By its letter dated August 26, 1997 the detaining authority informed the detenu that the representation could not be sent to the Central Government as it was made after extraordinary delay. The detaining authority pointed out that according to the Rules the said representation should have been made within three weeks from the date of his detention. Thereafter, the petitioner, who happens to be wife of the detenu, filed this petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) The only point that has been urged in support of this petition is that the detenu has a right to make a representation to the Central Government, independent of the representation he made to the State Government, to persuade the former to invoke its powers of revocation of the detention order under Section 14 of the Act and that by refusing to send the representation to the Central Government the detaining authority has deprived him of his such right.

(3.) In repudiating the above contention the detaining authority relied upon the following averments made in its supplementary counter-affidavit :-