The detenu was apprehended on June 11, 1981 and served with the order of detention together with the grounds and, in due companyrse, the detenu submitted his representation challenging the order of detention to the State Government.
He made a request in writing that he be allowed the assistance of companynsel during the hearing before the Advisory Board, but the Government did number accede to his request.
The relevant averment in para 17 of the petition is as follows Before the companymencement of these proceedings the detenu requested the State Government in writing that he be allowed assistance of companynsel during the companyrse of the proceedings before the Advisory Board.
The detenu had also requested to Advisory Board verbally that he be allowed the assistance of companynsel during the companyrse of the proceedings emphasis added In answer to the rule nisi, the District Magistrate Ropar who is the detaining authority, has filed a companynter affidavit by which he ex plained the circumstances which led to the issue of the detention order.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution Kapil Sibal, Ramesh C. Pathak, Subhash Sharma.
First as to the facts.
The detenu to his utter surprise found that there he had to place his case before the Advisory Board without assistance of Counsel, the order of detention was defended by State Counsel.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
On June 1, 1981, the District Magistrate passed an order of detention under sub s. 2 of s. 3 of the Act on being satisfied that detention of Inderjit was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of companymodities essential to the companymunity, and as required by sub s. 3 thereof, made a report forthwith to the State Government together with the grounds on which the order of detention had been made and the State Government approved of the same.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This is a petition under Art.
The said request was denied.
Various grounds have been taken challenging the validity of the order of detention, but it is number necessary for us to deal with them all as the view that we take on one of them is sufficient to dispose of the petition.
The main companytention is that the procedure adopted by the Advisory Board in allowing legal assistance to the State and denying such assistance to the detenu was both arbitrary and unreasonable and thus violative of Art.
R. K Khinria and R.K. Handa for the Petitioner.
However.
4975 of 1981.
P. Sharma and M. S. Dhillon for the Respondent.
32 of the Constitution by one Nand Lal Bajaj for the issuance of a writ of habeas companypus for the release of his son, Inderjit Billa, who has been detained by an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Ropar, under s. 3 of the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 hereinafter called the Act , on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of companymodities essential to the life of the companymunity.
The lawyers representing the State, during the companyrse of the proceedings before the Advisory Board included the District Attorney and the Additional District Attorney who were assisted by the District Legal Advisor and one legal assistant.
14 of the Constitution.
21 read with Art.
