(1.) A question of interest and im portance, though not res integra in its strict sense has been placed before us. Counsel on either side citing authorities obtensibly in their favour, in spite of their stands being divergent. Petitioner Mohasinia is the wife of detenu Sulthan. By an order dated 30.12.1992, respondent had directed preventive detention of Sulthan in exercise of powers conferred by Sec.3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act 46 of 1988), with a view to prevent him from engaging himself in possession and selling of Narcotic drugs.
(2.) PETITIONER has prayed for issue of a habeas corpus for production of her husband before this Court, to be set at liberty after quashing the impugned order of detention.
(3.) MR.I. Subramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while disputing, the correctness of the principles put forth by MR.B.Kumar, on the available facts, contended, that even though the order of detention may be passed by an officer specially empowered, as in the instant case, the order of detention was in effect the order of the State and hence the detenu does not have any right under Art.22(5) of the Constitution to make a representation to the officers specially empowered. In other words, his contention was, that if the representation was intended for the purpose of securing the release of the detenu, it could only be made effectively to the authority or authorities who would have the power to revoke the order of detention and not to one on whom such power of revocation has not been conferred by the Act.