KALAM ALIASBABA KALAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges his detention made under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act 'or 'nsa ).

(2.) AS per averments of the petitioner, he is a citizen of India and resides in Kota. On 6-12-88, he was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Kota under section 3 (2) of the Act by the District Magistrate Kota by his order dated 6-12-88, (Ex.-l) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub section (3) of section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention contained in Ex. R. 1 were served on him on 8-12-1988 along with the letter Ex. R. 2 issued by the District Magistrate, Kota. He submitted representations to the State. His matter was also placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for his detention under the NSA. His representations were rejected. The period of one year was fixed as the period of his detention by the State Government. He submitted representation on 9-3-1989 to the Central Government to reconsider his order of detention. No action has been taken on this representation up to the filing of the petition. The detention is challenged on two counts, namely: (i) The non-consideration of his representation submitted by him on 9-3-1989 to the Central Government till now vitiates his detention, and (ii) The grounds of detention furnished to in Ex. R. l do not make out a case that he was acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, as such, his detention had become necessary.

(3.) THE Next pertinent question is whether the second representation made by the detenue before the Central Government for the revocation of the detention order is or is not maintainable ? the contention of Mr. Gupta is that none of the provisions of the NSA creates a bar for the detenue to make the second representation for the revocation of the detention order. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Ram Bali Rajbhar V/s. THE State of West Bengal (1 ). We have carefully gone through this judgment of the Apex Court of India and find that it fully supports the submissions made by Mr. Gupta.