SANTOSH BHARTI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one Santosh Bharati under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for his release.

(2.) THE facts are that on 4th June 1973 the District Magistrate, Jabalpur, issued an order under section 3 (l) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 for detention of the petitioner in the Central Jail, Jabalpur. That order was slightly modified on 7th June 1973 and the petitioner was ordered to be detained in the District Jail, Rewa. On 8th June 1973 the grounds of detention were served on the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of these grounds the District Magistrate pointed out that the petitioner had a right of representation to the State Government against the order and that he had also "a right to claim personal appearance before the Advisory Board". The detention order passed by the District Magistrate was confirmed by the State government under section 5 (b) of the Act on 12th June 1973. On 2nd July 1973 the Chairman of the Advisory Board (constituted under the Act) issued the following notice to the petitioner:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued before us that on the facts stated above the petitioner was denied the right of personal hearing before the Advisory Board which was available to him under section 11 of the Act and, therefore, his detention was illegal. It is further argued that the representation made by the petitioner against his detention has not at all been considered by the State Government so far which also makes his detention illegal. The learned Advocate General who appeared for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not claim any personal hearing and, therefore, there is no violation of the right conferred on a detenue under section 11 of the Act. As regards the representation, he has argued that the representation was addressed to the Chairman of the Advisory Board and, therefore, it was forwarded to him and the State Government did not consider it. It was also submitted that in case it is held that the said representation should have been considered by the State Government, the Government is still prepared to consider the representation. The learned Advocate General did not dispute that if it is held on either of the two points in favour of the petitioner, his detention must be held to be illegal.