LATHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. P. Samuvelraj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Rajendiran, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE order of detention under Section 3 of the National Security Act 1980 (Central Act 65/1980), in short "the Act", is being questioned by the wife of the detenu. The detention order under Section 3 (3) of the Act has been passed by the Commissioner of Police, who is the officer authorised, on 16/4/2007. It is stated that such detention order, which is passed by the officer, received the approval of the State Government within twelve days period as contemplated under Section 3 (4) of the Act.

(3.) IN the habeas corpus petition, it has been specifically averred that the present petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, had made a representation dated 17/4/2007 addressed to the Commissioner of Police, namely the detaining authority. Similarly, it has been specifically stated that representation was also made to the State Government and also to the Central Government and a ground has been taken that the representation made to the Commissioner of Police has not been disposed of and similarly the State Government and the Central Government have not considered the representation. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is also specifically stated ". . . State Government has not sent any report to the Central Government in this regard".