M.KATJU, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 9-1-2000 Annexure 1 to the petition, passed under the National Security Act.
(3.) In our opinion this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that the District Magistrate did not apply his mind independently while rejecting the representation of the petitioner. He rejected only on the ground that after approval of the detention order by the State Government the District Magistrate was not empowered to consider the said representation. This has been stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit of the then District Magistrate.;