ABHINAV DWIVEDI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties for final disposal, by consent.

(2.) All these petitions can be disposed of by this common order.

(3.) In all these petitions order of detention is subject-matter of challenge. In the leading writ petition (W.P.No.1830/2015), the first point urged before us is that the grounds of detention are bereft of any information and un-intelligible. Moreover, the same refers to stale instances/grounds. Further, no intimation is given to the petitioner-detenu that he has right to make representation to the detaining authority before confirmation of the order by the State Government and thereby right guaranteed to the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India has been abridged. Even in the companion cases, the last point raised in the leading petition arises for consideration. In none of the impugned orders the fact that the detenu has right to make representation to the detaining authority before confirmation of the order by the State Government has been expressly stated. On this indisputable position, the question will have to be answered on the basis of the exposition of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India & others, 1995 4 SCC 51. The Supreme Court has opined that if the power of revocation is to be treated as criteria to ascertain the Authority whom representation to be made, then representation against the order of detention made by an officer specially empowered by the State Government can be made to officer who has made the order as well as to the State Government or the Central Government who are competent to revoke the order. Indeed the Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of COFEPOSA Act but we find that the provisions of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 are pari materia with the provisions of COFEPOSA Act.