M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS Habeas Corpus Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned detention order dated 22 5 2004 passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act and claiming compensation for illegal detention.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner, while being lodged in District Jail, Budaun, was served with a detention order along with grounds of detention on 12 5 2004. The detention order was not approved by the State Government on 22 5 2004. On the same day, i.e. 22 5 2004 second detention order was passed by the District Magistrate, Budaun and was served on the petitioner in district jail the same day. During the pendency of the present Habeas Corpus Petition, the order of detention was revoked by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. D. S. Misra has argued that since his earlier detention order dated 12 5 2004 was not approved by the State Government, the subsequent revocation entitles the petitioner to damages. In support of his contention claiming compensation for the illegal detention of the petitioner, main arguments of Sri D. S. Misra are twofold. The first ground for compensation is that since the earlier detention order stood revoked as the same was not approved by the State Government, subsequently fresh detention order passed on the same day on same facts was not permissible under the law. On this aspect, he has laid emphasis on the proviso to Section 14, sub clause (2) of the National Security Act and has urged that as there was no fresh fact, there was no necessity of passing a fresh detention order and this illegal act on the part of the respondents entitles the petitioner to claim compensation.
(3.) SECONDLY , he argued that the petitioner had demanded certain documents from the detaining authority for making an effective representation, but the copies of the same were not supplied to him and non supply of essential documents precluded the petitioner from making an effective representation for infringement of his fundamental right which entitles him to damages.;