SHAKIR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the Court was delivered by U. L. Bhat, C. J. - The petitioner has been detained by order of the respondent No. 2 under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) (Annexure P/2) passed on 22-7-1993. The grounds of detention were served on 25-7-1992. The detenu did not make a written representation. The matter was referred to the Advisory Board. The detenu was made to appear before the Advisory Board on 18-8-1993. The Advisory Board gave him a personal hearing and reported that there is sufficient cause for detention. The State Government by order dated 3-9-1993 confirmed the detention and fixed the period of detention as twelve months. Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of the order of detention.

(2.) The writ petition was heard at the Gwalior Bench of the High Court. On behalf of the petitioner two contentions were urged before the Bench. The first contention was that the order of confirmation was passed mechanically and without application of mind. Both the Judges who constituted the Division Bench have repelled this contention. The other contention urged was where a detenu has not submitted a written representation and appeared before the Board, the Board has an obligation to ask him whether he requires the assistance of a friend to submit a representation. It was further argued that in the present case the detenu was not asked to make a representation and therefore, he was deprived of opportunity in the matter of submitting representation before the Advisory Board. S. K. Dube, J. accepted this contention as tenable while S. K. Chawla, J. was not inclined to agree with contention. Therefore, the Bench referred the case to the Chief Justice hence the occasion for this Full Bench the matter. (sic)

(3.) When the petition was pending before Gwalior Bench, the petitioner was represented by Sarvashri R. K. Verma and Y. K. Pathak, Advocates. S.P.C. was issued to senior counsel about the scheduled date of hearing by the Full Bench, but none of the counsel appeared before the Full Bench on 28-4-1994 and 10-5-1995. We requested Shri Deepak Verma, Advocate, to assist the petitioner. He has addressed his arguments on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General also.