MOHMED KASAM IMMAMUDDIN SHAIKH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common question arises in these two petitions filed by persons who have been detained under section 3(1) of the National Security Act. 1980. The point raised by the learned Counsel for the detenu is that in the grounds of detention furnished to each of the detenus under section 8 of the said Act, there is no mention that the detenu can make a representation to the Advisory Board. All that is mentioned is that the detenu has a right to make a representation to the State Government.

(2.) In this connection, Counsel for the detenus placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Wasi Uddin Ahmed v. District Magistrate. Aligarh. In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has, while dealing with a similar contention, observed as under:

(3.) In the present case, the grounds of detention merely state that the detenu has a right to make a representation to the State Government. The grounds are totally silent in so far as the detenus right under Article 22(5) of the Constitution to make a representation to the Advisory Board and to be heard in person by that body is concerned. The deprivation of the said right so far as the present detenus are concerned, cannot be doubted. The present detenus were not informed, even orally, at the time of service of the grounds of detention that they had a right to make a representation to the Advisory Board as well as claim personal hearing prima facie, therefore, the contention appears to be covered by the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Wasi Uddin Ahmeds case (supra).