RUKSHANA IMTIYAZ RAJAK DALAL Vs. R H MENDONCA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the wife of the detenu. THE petitioner came to be detained under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 by order dated 10th September 1999.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is the common ground that the Full Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 23/3/2000 passed in Criminal writ Petition No. 272 of 1999 (Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 1349 (F. B.)) and Criminal Writ Petition No. 282 of 1999 (Juber Goplani Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) has held in para 26 that "the Detaining Authority as contemplated under Subsection 2 of Section 3 of the M. P. D. A. Act is competent to modify or revoke the order of detention till it remains in force initially for a period of 12 days, unless, in the meantime, it has been approved by the State Government". . . . . . . . . and in para 27, has held that "it will not be out of place to observe that in case the Detaining Authority fails to inform the detenu of his right to make a representation against the order of detention, it would vitiate the order" and it is also common ground between them that the detenu was not apprised of his right to make a representation against the detention order to the Detaining Authority, within the aforesaid period, of twelve days, we are left with no other option but, to allow this Writ Petition in view of the Judgment of the Full bench, supra, which is binding on us.

(3.) A copy duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be made available to both the sides. Petition allowed. .