M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shamsher Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government counsel. The Petitioner is challenging the impugned detention order dated 20.5.2001 (Annexure-1 to the petition) passed under the 'National Security Act'.
(2.) It has been alleged in paragraph 3 of the supplementary-affidavit that the District Magistrate who is the detaining authority did not inform the detenu that he could make representation to the detaining authority. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Maharashtra v. Santosh Kumar Acharya, 2001 (1) A CrR 453 (SC) : (XLI) 2000 ACC 704. This decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri v. Adhikshak Janpad Karagar, Muzaffarnagar, 2000 (3) ACR 2420 : 2000 (41) ACC 883.
(3.) In the supplementary counter-affidavit, it has been stated that Petitioner had made a representation to the District Magistrate on 28.5.2001. The District Magistrate (Detaining Authority) held that he could not modify or revoke the detention order dated 20.5.2001 since the same had been approved by the State Government on 23.5.2001. From this, it is obvious that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind independently to the merits of the representation, but he rejected it merely on the ground that the State Government had approved the detention order on 23.5.2001.;