Dr.T.N.Singh, J. - (1.)We have just now disposed of another detenus writ petition in Civil Rule (H.C.) No. 28 of 1984 dealing with a novel aspect of violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The facts of this case are more bizarre and weave a weird pattern disclosing another prismatic aspect of violation of same mandate.
(2.)The facts of the instant case in so far as they are necessary to be narrated for the consideration of the grievance lie within a narrow compass. On 12/11/1984 an order made under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, for short the Act, was served on the detenu though the groundsT were served on him on 13/11/1984 in jail wherein he was, even before 12/11/1984, held in confinement. The State Government approved the detention order passed by the District Magistrate. On 16/11/84 there was a meeting of the Advisory Board which heard the detenu and considered the materials placed before it on behalf of the detaining authority. On the same day report was submitted to the Government. In accordance therewith detenuTs detention was confirmed on 26/11/1984 for a period of 12 months.
(3.)However, we have before us a copy of the letter marked as Annexure A15 to the writ petition which the detenu wrote on 30/11/84 to the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. This letter is very revealing and carry the burden of detenuTs grievance. The detenuTs complaint was that the order confirming his detention had been passed but he was given no opportunity to submit representation though he was under the impression that he could file his representation until 3/12/1984. There is an averment on oath in the writ petition that no reply was received by the detenu to this letter. However, State GovernmentTs stance in its return was that the letter was considered and the request made by the detenu was rejected and this fact was required to be communicated to him by the Jail Superintendent. However, there is no affidavit before us by the Jail Superintendent to show that the direction of the State Government was in fact carried out and the detenu was only communicated the decision of the State Government.
;