Vishnu Sahai, J. - (1.) Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-detenu Ajitendra Kumar Yadav alias Chhanga Yadav has impugned order dated 14.1.2002 passed by the third respondent Dr. Mool Chand Yadav, District Magistrate, Shravasti, detaining him under section 3(2) of the National Security Act. The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 14.1.2002 was served on the petitioner-detenu on 15.1.2002 and their true copies have been annexed as Annexure Nos-1 and 2 respectively to this writ petition.
(2.) The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu impelling the third respondent to pass the impugned order against him are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure-1). A perusal of the grounds of detention would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C.R. i.e. C.R. No. 324 of 2001 under sections 302, 201, 411 and 394 IPC, of police station lkauna. District Shravasti, registered on the basis of complaint lodged by Shrawan Kumar Shukla on 26.1.2001 at 3 P.M. at the said police-station. Since in our view, a reference to the prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu connected with the said C.R. is not necessary for the adjudication of the pleadings contained in paragraph 19 of the petition and ground 27(D) thereof, on which alone this petition deserves to succeed we are not adverting to them.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The substance of the pleadings contained in paragraph 19 of the petition and ground 27(D) thereof is that the petitioner-detenu had a right to make a representation to the detaining authority within 12 days from the date of passing of the detention order or its approval by the State Government whichever was earlier and the said right was not communicated to him and consequently the impugned detention order is vitiated in law and is rendered violative of Article 22(5)' of the Constitution of India. Mr. S.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner took us through the grounds of detention order which make it manifest that the petitioner-detenu was not apprised therein of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority.;