It appears that on 6th February 1981 the advocate of the detenu addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Bombay Central Prison where the detenu was then companyfined and alongwith this letter he forwarded nine companyies of the representation which was to be submitted by the detenu to the Government of Maharashtra against the order of detention.
In the meantime, the case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board and on 11th March 1981, the detenu was called for an oral hearing by the Advisory Board and at this meeting the detenu handed over to the Chairman and Members of the Advisory Board four companyies of a further representation dated 11th March 1981 addressed by him jointly to the Chairman and the Members of the Advisory Board and the Government of Maharashtra praying that the Government of Maharashtra may be pleased to revoke the order of detention and set the detenu at liberty.
The petitioner who is the wife of the detenu thereupon preferred the present writ petition challenging the order of detention made by the Government of Maharashtra as also the companytinuance of the detention under the subsequent order dated 23rd March 1981.
Whether P. V. Nayak companysidered the representation and disposed it of or the Minister of State for Home did so would be immaterial, since both had authority to act for the State Government and wherever be the instrumentality, whether P. V. Nayak or the Minister of State for Home, it would be the State Government which would be companysidering and dealing with the representation.
It appears that a companyy of the representation was also sent by the detenu to the Central Government and by its letter dated 26th February 1981 the Central Government too rejected the representation.
This letter was delivered by the authorities in charge of the Bombay Central Prison to the detenu on 6th February 1981, but on the same day the detenu was shifted from the Bombay Central Prison to Nasik Road Central Prison and the nine companyies of the representation were therefore carried by the detenu with him to the Nasik Road Central Prison and from there, the requisite number of companyies of the representation duly signed by the detenu were forwarded to the Government of Maharashtra and the Chairman of the Advisory Board on 10th February 1981.
The Advisory Board companysidered the case of the detenu and by a letter dated 16th March 1981, the Secretary of the Advisory Board intimated to the advocate of the detenu that the Advisory Board had by its report dated 12th March 1981 advised the Government of Maharashtra that there was sufficient cause for the detention of the detenu.
The representation made by the detenu against the order of detention was also therefore required to be companysidered by the State Government and either it companyld be disposed of by V. Nayak acting for the State Government under the earlier Standing order dated 18th July 1980 or the Minister of State for Home companyld dispose it of under the later Standing order dated 18th July 1980.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Ram Jethmalani, Vineet Kumar, M. G. Karmali and Naresh K Sharma for the Petitioner.
The State Government thereafter in exercise of the powers companyferred under clause f of section 8 passed an order dated 23rd March 1981 reciting the opinion given by the Advisory Board and companyfirming the order of the detention.
This representation was however rejected by the Government of Maharashtra by its letter dated 25th February 1981.
ORIGlNAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Criminal No.
This order of detention though dated 31st December 1980 was served on the detenu on 17th January 1981 and alongwith the order of detention, a companymunication, also dated 31st December 1980, was served on the detenu companytaining the grounds of detention.
1892 of 1981.
The Government of Maharashtra also served on the detenu at the same time a letter dated 7th January 1981 enclosing companyies of the documents relied upon in the grounds of detention.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This is a petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus for securing the release of one Hasnain Mukhtar Hussain Lakdawala hereinafter referred to as the detenu who has been detained by the Government of Maharashtra under an order of detention dated 31st December 1980 made in exercise of the powers companyferred under section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act 1974 hereinafter referred to as the COFEPOSA.
