A representation was made to the District Magistrate dated 28.9.2016 who acts under delegated power under the State Government.
By the impugned judgment dated 18.1.2017, it was held that the appellant was a history sheeter with a long standing record of criminal antecedents and involved in grave offences even though he is acquitted in 18 of 31 cases.
This was, in fact, stated to be so by an order dated 17.9.2016, which revoked the said detention order As this was the case, the present detention order was passed on 21.9.2016.
The Court held that the first was companysidered by the District Magistrate who opined that it ought to be rejected, and this was companysidered by the State Government, which took the same view.
This order was approved by the Under Secretary to the State Government on 26.9.2016.
A representation against the aforesaid order was also made by the appellant on 12.9.2016, but for want of State Government approval within the time specified under the said Act, the order was rendered ineffective with effect from today.
On the very date, a second representation was sent, this time to the State Government.
This representation was rejected on 6.10.2016 by the under Secretary to the Government of Bihar.
It was also held that this order was passed apart from old cases other than cases in the grounds justifying detention including 3 recent entries which are called sanhas entries in different police stations with regard to the appellants companyduct.
This representation has number been adverted to or disposed of by the State Government.
It was also held that numbermala fides were involved, and the plea that the appellant was number informed as to the authority to whom he should make the representation, was dismissed by stating that the detention order itself stated that it companyld be made through the Jail Superintendent.
It was further held that the appellants representation made to the State Government on 6.10.2016 number having been disposed of can make numberdifference inasmuch as this representation and the first representation are virtually the same the first representation had been companysidered and rejected.
A writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the aforesaid order.
There are at least 13 cases including serious offences in which, apart from other cases, he is facing trial.
The appellant states that he is an illiterate person who cannot read and write but is advised by well wishers and lawyers who are well informed, and that since, through his advisors, he has made a representation that was rejected, numberprejudice was caused to him.
On 20.10.2016, the Advisory Board, companystituted under Section 18 of the Act, stated that the grounds of detention were made out under the Act, and finally on 25.10.2016, the second order of detention was companyfirmed by the State Government.
F. NARIMAN,J. The present appeal arises out of a preventive detention order dated 21.9.2016 by which the appellant was preventively detained under the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 the Act for short for the maximum period of one year.
A preventive detention order dated 5.9.2016 was first passed against the appellant under section 12 2 of the aforesaid Act.
