- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of detention dated 10.9.2010 as well as order confirmation passed by the State Government dated 11.10.2010 by invoking the powers under Section 12(2) by the District Magistrate and Sections 21 and 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 by the State Government.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority, the District Magistrate, was under obligation not only to communicate the order of detention but also was under obligation to inform the petitioner that he has right to submit the representation and till the detention order is confirmed by the State Government, the detaining authority himself was empowered to consider the representation of the petitioner and was only competent officer who could have passed the order of withdrawal of detention. Since the petitioner has not been informed that he has a right to submit representation before the detaining authority, therefore, that order is in violation to the provisions of the Act of 1981 as well as contrary to the constitutional provision as provided under Article 22(5). Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Maharashtra and others v. Santosh Shankar Acharya., 2000 AIR(SC) 2504.;