However, Smt.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioner has number made any grievance regarding the rejection of these two representations by the State Government.
The detenue was arrested on 19.7.79 and on the same day he was served with the grounds of detention in which there was numberindication, although there should have been that the detenu was entitled to make a representation to the detaining authority.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the Government of India also a very vague and evasive stand appears to have been taken.
It is number said that any orders were passed on the representation or that it was companysidered but it is said that it was to abide by any stand taken by the State Government.
Section 11 1 of the COFEPUSA Act clearly enjoins that the Central Government may revoke or modify an order passed by the State Government.
It appears, however, that on the 6th December, 1979 another representation was sent by by Smt.
Nita, the wife of the detenu, made two representations dated 267.79 and 31.7.79 to the State Government but the same were rejected on or before the 30th August, 1979.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. This writ petition by Tara Chand, a brother of the detenu, Hira Nand, has been filed against and order of detention dated 30.6.79 passed by the Government of Rajasthan under the provisions of Conservation of Foreign Exchange Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act hereinafter called the Coffposa .
