S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges his detention made under Section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act 'or 'nsa ).
(2.) AS per averments of the petitioner, he is a citizen of India and resides in Kota. On 6-12-88, he was arrested and lodged in District Jail, Kota under section 3 (2) of the Act by the District Magistrate Kota by his order dated 6-12-88, (Ex.-l) in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub section (3) of section 3 of the Act. The grounds of detention contained in Ex. R. 1 were served on him on 8-12-1988 along with the letter Ex. R. 2 issued by the District Magistrate, Kota. He submitted representations to the State. His matter was also placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board held that there was sufficient cause for his detention under the NSA. His representations were rejected. The period of one year was fixed as the period of his detention by the State Government. He submitted representation on 9-3-1989 to the Central Government to reconsider his order of detention. No action has been taken on this representation up to the filing of the petition. The detention is challenged on two counts, namely: (i) The non-consideration of his representation submitted by him on 9-3-1989 to the Central Government till now vitiates his detention, and (ii) The grounds of detention furnished to in Ex. R. l do not make out a case that he was acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and, as such, his detention had become necessary. In the return filed by the respondents, the detention of the petitioner under the Act was admitted and it was stated that his detention had become necessary so as to prevent him from action in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It was further stated that the representation of the petitioner was received on 30-1-1989 by the Central Government through the State Government. It was considered and rejected on 10-2-1989. It was denied that the petitioner submitted any representation on 9-3-1989, It was stated that no such representation was received by the Central Government and, as such, no question for the reconsideration of the detention order or revoking the same arose. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General and the standing counsel for the Central Government. Eloberating the first contention, it was argued by Mr. Gupta that the petitioner sent his representation to the President of India on 9-3-19. 89 from the District Jail, Kota by Regd. post/a. D. His representation was received in the office of the President on 20-3-1989 vide receipt Ex. 7. This representation has not been considered till now and that vitiates the petitioners detention. It was on the other hand contended by the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Chaudhary that no representation was made by the petitioner on 9-3-1989 nor was any received by the respondents. Inter-alia, it was contended that once the , representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected on 10-2-1989 by the Central Government. The second representation even if taken to have been submitted by the petitioner is not maintainable in the law. The failure by the Central Government in not giving consideration to the second representation of the. petitioner does not make the detention illegal. We have taken the respective submissions in to consideration. Two questions arise for our deliberation and decision. The first is whether the petitioner made any representation on 9-3-1989 ? It is a question of fact whether any such representation was made or not. The petitioner has submitted the postal receipt Ex. 7 which shows that he sent his representation to the President of India and it was received in the office of the President of India on 20-3-1989. The petitioner has filed Ex. 3, which is the copy of the representation he addressed to the President of India. In view of the postal receipt Ex. 7, it can be safely said that the petitioner addressed the representation to the President of India, sent it by Regd. post/a,d, and the same was received in the office of the President of India on 20-3-1989. We can also safely assume that the President of India must have sent this representation to the Home Ministry of Central Government for consideration and disposal. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention of Mr. Chaudhary that no representation made by the petitioner on 9-3-1989 was received by the Central Government.
(3.) THE Next pertinent question is whether the second representation made by the detenue before the Central Government for the revocation of the detention order is or is not maintainable ? the contention of Mr. Gupta is that none of the provisions of the NSA creates a bar for the detenue to make the second representation for the revocation of the detention order. Reliance in support of the contention was placed on Ram Bali Rajbhar V/s. THE State of West Bengal (1 ). We have carefully gone through this judgment of the Apex Court of India and find that it fully supports the submissions made by Mr. Gupta. In para 12 of the judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under in Ram Bali Rajbhar's case : "it will be a reasonable and judicious exercise of the power under Section 14 to refer a case once again to the Advisory Board for its opinion before a subsequent representation made on fresh materials by a detenue is rejected. It is true that the express and mandatory duty to refer arises only under the conditions laid down by S. 10 and there is no specific or separate provision for calling for the opinion of the Advisory Board from time to time. But the power under Section 14 of the Act, read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which is specifically mentioned in Section 14 of the Act, could import or imply a power of the State Government to refer a second representation like wise to the Advisory Board, if the State Government so decide in an analogous situation. And, the Advisory Board can then adopt such parts of the procedure laid down in Section 11 as could be applied to a second representation. In such a case, the reference would not be under Section 10 but under Section 14 of the Act read with the necessary implication of preserving the power of the Government to act as laid down in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. In other words, the subsequent reference would result from a necessarily implied power of the Government, to act, so far any possible in a like manner to the one it had to adopt in confirming or revoking the initial detention order under Section 12. " Mr. Chaudhary strived hard to impress on us that the second representation based on the same grounds taken in the earlier representation is of no use because the grounds taken earlier by the detenu already have been considered and rejected. As such, even if the second representations was made by the detenu, it required no consideration. The contention of Mr. Chaudhary is totally ineffective and barren. ;