In support of thatcontention reliance was placed before the High Court on the decision of this Court in the case of Jai Parkash v. District Magistrate, Bulandshahr, U.P I The High Court distinguished the said decision and held that the facts of the present case are different inasmuch as the detenu is an advocate and must be deemed to be aware of the need for clear cut representation while in this case the representation was vague.
Any representation that is made by the detenu will be duly companysidered by the State or Central Government, as the case may be.
The said order of detention was challenged by the appellant before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Habeas Corpus Petition No.
There is numberdispute that such a letter was received along with nine companyies of representation by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Madras on 4 5 1994.
The detenu was supplied grounds of detention of even date when he was detained pursuant to the impugned detention order.
The grounds raised by her in support of the petition did number find favour with the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed.
The said ground was that companystitutional right of the detenu under Article 22 5 of the Constitution got infracted inasmuch as representation was made against the detention order on 4 5 1994 through the jail authorities and that was number forwarded to the Central Government till 22 7 1994.
785 of 1994.
The present appellant sent the representation along with a companyering letter dated 4 5 1994 addressed to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras.
As per his instructions, I am enclosing his representation.
Please send the same to the persons mentioned in the grounds immediately.
A futile attempt was made by the learned companynsel for the respondent to distinguish the judgment on the ground that in Jai Parkash case1 the detention was under the National Security Act and that representation to the Central Government was never companysidered while in the present case the detention is under COFEPOSA and the representation was ultimately decided upon by the Central Government.
It was further stated that if the detenu wished to make such a representation he should address it to the Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public Law and Order Department, Fort St. George, Madras 9 or the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, COFEPOSA Section, New Delhi, as the case may be, and forward it through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Madras in which detenu was companyfined, as expeditiously as possible.
In the grounds of detention furnished to him it was clearly mentioned in paragraph 6 that the detenu had a right to make a representation to the State Government and also to the Government of India if he so desired in writing against the order under which he was kept under detention.
The present appeal is filed by special leave against the said order.
Under these circumstances, the jailor was bound to send one companyy to the Central Government and he did number do so and that infracted the companystitutional right of the detenu under Article 22 5 .
That petition came to be dismissed by the High Court by its order dated 18 8 1994.
She stated in the said letter enclosing the representation with nine companyies as under My husband M. Balakrishnan, s o Murugappan is detained in your prison as a detenu under COFEPOSA Act.
The appellant is wife of one M. Balakrishnan who has been detained pursuant to an order passed by Joint Secretary of Tamil Nadu in exercise of powers companyferred by Sections 3 1 i and 3 1 iii of COFEPOSA Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAJMUDAR, J. Special leave granted.
As stated earlier the detenu was taken into custody and was placed under preventive detention pursuant to the order dated 17 2 1993.
As held by this Court in Jai Parkash case1 when the detenu gave sufficient number of companyies of the representation and left it to the jail authorities to forward the same to the authorities as specified in the grounds of detention, the Superintendent of Jail was legally bound to send one companyy to the Central Government.
The appellant had raised various companytentions challenging the order of detention.
The delay in sending the said representation to the Central Government had numberfatal companysequences on the companytinued detention of the detenu.
On the companytrary, the grounds of detention themselves as furnished to the detenu had rightly indicated that the detenu companyld represent to the Central Government.
In appeal amongst others onecontention was placed in the forefront in support of the appeal.
Consequently, the companytinued detention of the detenu has become illegal.
By an earlier order of this Court numberice was issued in this matter for final disposal and accordingly we have heard the learned companynsel for the parties finally.
The order of his detention is dated 17 2 1993.
