AMRITHA Vs. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question that arises for our consideration in this writ petition is: "whether non-consideration of the representation by the officer mentioned in sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the A. P. Prevent

(2.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus, the petitioner see

(3.) THE factual matrix leading to the passing of the order of detention to the extent essential to understand the controversy, the first respondent passed the order of detention dt. 23-11-2007 under Section 3 (1) and (2) r/w Sec. 2 (a) and (b) of the Act, on respondents filing their counter-affidavit dt. 18-1-2008, the petitioner filed WPMP No. 2126/20 the only submission made by the learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy appearing for the petitioner is that the rep 1. UNION OF INDIA V. HARISH KUMAR (2008) 1 SCC (CRL) 164 2. MEENA JAYENDRA THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA (1999) 8 SCC 177=1999 SCC (CRL) 1392 3. KAMLESHKUMAR ISHWARDAS PATEL V. UNION OF INDIA 1995 SCC (CRL)643 on the other hand, the learned Government Pleader representing the Advocate General appearing for the respon 1. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR (1982) 3 SCC 10 at this stage we set out the most relevant provisions of the Act before considering in detail the issue involved in the pre section 3 confers power to make orders detaining certain persons, which reads as under: