TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the detaining authority, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance as also to the Chairman of the COFEPOSA Central Advisory Board. In the said representation various grounds were raised challenging the order of detention and praying that the order of detention be revoked as there was no sufficient cause for the appellant's detention. The Advisory Board considered the case of the detenu on 19th April, 2002 but the opinion of the Advisory Board was not in favour of the release of the detenu. Thereafter the detaining authority passed an order on 6th May, 2002 rejecting the representation of the detenu after fully considering the same. By order dated 8th May, 2002 the representation of the detenu was rejected by the Central Government after careful consideration. The case of the appellant is that he made a second representation on 19th April, 2002 but the same was not considered and the order of detention was confirmed. Before the High Court it was urged on behalf of the appellant that the detenu had made a third representation on 14th May, 2002 but the appellant has not made any submission before us with regard to the said third representation, and therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 12th April, 2002 but did not dispose of the second representation made on 19th April, 2002. The second representation of 19th April, 2002 may have been considered by the Advisory Board or by the detaining authority, since the detaining authority formally rejected the representation dated 19th April, 2002 by a separate order dated 8th May, 2002, but the Central Government did not pass a similar order. So far as the second representation was concerned the same was never considered or rejected, because the order of May 8, 2002 rejecting the representation specifically refers to the representation dated 12th April, 2002 which was the first representation. He also challenged the order confirming the detention under Section 8(f) of the Act because the same was passed without first disposing of the second representation which was made by the detenu on 19th April, 2002. Counsel for the appellant relied upon several decisions of this Court and urged that a detenu has a constitutional right to make as many representations as he wishes to make, and the detaining authority as well as the Central Government are under a constitutional obligation to dispose them of at the earliest. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en has against his detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Article 22(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8(a) of the Act, Parliament has, in its wisdom, enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action . Thereafter this Court went on to hold :- The principle that emerges from all these decisions is that the power of revocation conferred on the Central Government under Section 14 of the Act is a statutory power which may be exercised on information received by the Central Government from its own sources including that supplied by the State Government under sub- section (5) of Section 3 or from the detenu in the form of a petition or representation. It is for the Central Government to decide whether or not it should revoke the order of detention in a particular case. In the present case, the detenu was not deprived of the right of making a representation to the detaining authority under Article 22(5) of the Constitution read with Section 8(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by Lakshmana Rao indeed, was considered and rejected . It thus appears from the aforesaid judgment that even the statutory power vested in the Central Government to revoke the order of detention may be exercised in its discretion only in cases where fresh materials or changed or new factors call for the exercise of that power, and there is no right in favour of the detenu to get his successive representations based on the same grounds rejected earlier to be formally disposed of again. This principle finds affirmation in a judgment rendered by a constitution bench of this Court in Makhan lal Gokul Chand V. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Anr. : (1999) 9 SCC 504 in which this Court found that the petitioner challenged the order of detention and failed thrice, and yet filed another representation which did not disclose any fresh material, nor were any subsequent events pointed out which may have warranted a fresh consideration of the representation made by the detenu. It was only a change in the language of the representation. The Delhi Administration was, therefore found, justified in rejecting the representation since there were no fresh grounds nor any fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
