MADAN CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. K. Sharma, J. Madan Chauhan petitioner has filed this writ petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to quash the order of his detention dated 16-11 -1995 passed by the District Magistrate, District Mau, Respondent No. 2 under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980. The detention order is Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. The detention order has been challenged before us on the sole ground that in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he had a right to make representation on the ground of detention to the Central Government and thus he was denied the constitutional right to make the representation to the Government of India. The plea has been taken in para-19 of the Writ Petition. In reply to this para, it has been stated in the Counter Affidavit of Sri Om Prakash, District Magistrate, Mau in para-17 that the petitioner had a right to make representation before the appropriate Government regarding which he was informed and as such, there is strict compliance of the Act as well as Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE learned A. G. A. has supported the plea of the District Magistrate by pointing out that Section 8 (1) of the National Security Act obliges the detaining authority to communicate to the detenu the grounds on which the order has been made and to afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate Government. He has also pointed out to the definition of appropriate Government as has been given in Section 2 (a) of the National Security Act. In that definition, the appropriate Government means as respects the detention order made by an officer subordinate to the State Government. His contention, therefore, is that this requirement has been met by the District Magistrate in the grounds of detention in respect of the detenu and as such, there is neither violation of Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India or Section 8 (1) of the National Security Act. Article 22 (5) of the Constitution of India provides as below: "when any person is detained in pursuance of an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earlier opportunity of making a representation against the order. " THE Article does not specify by designation the authority to whom representation is to be made.

(3.) IN that case the principal question was whether it was obligatory on the part of the Central Government to consider a second representation for revocation under Section 14 of the National Security Act and this point was replied in the negative.